Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
NAMRATA SINGH & ORS. – PETITIONERS
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL 'CIVIL AVIATION (DGCA) & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
WP(C) 1867, 1880/2012
Decided On : 25.01.2016
For the Petitioners:Mr Arun Khatri & Mr Anshul Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Ms Gunjan Bansal, Adv. for R- 1 & 2., Mr Ratan K. Singh, Mr. D.D. Singh, Mr Raghvendra Bajaj, Mr Navdeep Singh, Mr Vipul Agrawal, Mr Udit Chauhan, Mr Vinay Vats & Mr Raghav Alok, Advocates for R- 3 & 4., Mr A.K. De, Mr Rajesh Dwivedi & Mr Zahid Ali, Advocates for R-5.
The interpretation of insurance policies and the liability of insurance companies in cases of air crashes.
Headnote:
AIR CRASH - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT, 1972 - LIABILITY OF CARRIER - LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER - EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - MONTREAL CONVENTION - INTERPRETATION OF INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY OF DGCA.
Fact of the Case:
Two writ petitions were filed by the legal representatives of Capt. Harpreet Singh Sekhon and Capt. Manjeet Kataria, who died in an air crash on 25.05.2011. The petitioners claimed compensation and damages for loss of life. The aircraft was operated by Respondent No. 3 and was insured by United India Insurance Company Ltd. (UICL). The DGCA and the Union of India were also made respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, as the crew members were covered under the insurance policy issued by UICL. The court also held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation over and above that provided in the 1972 Act by virtue of their employment contract with Respondent No. 3. The court further held that UICL was liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as the crew members were covered under the insurance policy.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? 2. If the petitioners are found to be entitled to compensation, can they claim compensation under the 1972 Act? 3. In case the answer to issue no.(ii) is in the affirmative, what would be the quantum of such compensation? 4. Are the petitioners entitled to compensation, over and above that which is provided in the 1972 Act by virtue of their employment contract, with respondent no.3? 5. In the event the answer to issue no.(iv) is in the affirmative, is respondent no.3’s liability towards the petitioners covered under the Insurance Contract executed between itself and UICL? 6. If, the answer to issue no.(v) is in the affirmative, to what extent would UICL be liable? 7. What should be the final relief, if any, in the instant case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, and held that the crew members were covered under the insurance policy issued by UICL. 2. The court also interpreted the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, and held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation over and above that provided in the 1972 Act by virtue of their employment contract with Respondent No. 3.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed UICL to pay compensation to the petitioners. The court also directed the DGCA and the Union of India to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) with regard to the safety recommendations made by the Committee constituted to inquire into the reasons for the crash.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Prefatory Facts :
1. These, are two writ petitions, filed by the legal representatives of, one, Capt. Harpreet Singh Sekhon and Capt. Manjeet Kataria. Capt. Harpreet Singh Sekhon and Capt. Manjeet Kataria died in an air crash, on 25.05.2011. The legal representatives claim various reliefs including compensation and damages for loss of life.
1.1 The first writ petition, in order of seriatum, being: WP(C) 1867/2012 was initially instituted by the wife (i.e. petitioner no.1) and the minor child (i.e. petitioner no.2) of Capt. Harpreet Singh Sekhon; to which, his mother (i.e. Mrs Jagjit Kaur) was added as a party-respondent no.6 vide order dated 11.12.2013, passed in CM No. 1260/2013, and thereafter, transposed as petitioner no.3 vide order dated 22.05.2015. The transposition of Mrs Jagjit Kaur was not opposed by petitioner no.1either in her own individual capacity or in her the capacity as the guardian of petitioner no.2.
1.2 In so far as the Second writ petition is concerned, being: WP(C) 1880/2012, it has been instituted by the mother (i.e. petitioner no.1) and the unmarried brother (i.e. petitioner no.2) of Late Capt. Manjeet Kataria.
2. These writ petitions were sought to be amended only to the extent of seeking relief qua respondent no.5 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereafter referred to as UICL). Amendments to both writ petitions were allowed, albeit vide two separate orders. Amendment to WP(C) 1880/2012 was permitted vide order dated 09.03.2015. In so far as WP(C) 1867/2012 was concerned, amendment was allowed on 29.05.2015. Since, the amendment was directed towards UICL, the said entity was permitted to file an additional counter affidavit to the amended writ petition. The UICL has, instead, only filed an additional affidavit, that too, in WP(C) 1880/2012.
3. I may also note that respondent no.1 i.e. the Director General of Civil Aviation (in short DGCA) and respondent no.2, effectively, the Union of India, which is sued via the concerned ministry, had initially indicated, in the hearing held on 04.10.2012, that they did not wish to file a counter affidavit; a position which was revisited after it was indicated in the hearing held on 20.08.2015 that they should in the very least file a written submission in the matter. Accordingly, upon a counter affidavit having been filed on behalf of DGCA, the same was permitted to be taken on record vide order dated 28.09.2015, having regard to the nature of the matter. With the counter affidavit, the DGCA, placed on record certain documents which were not brought on record by the other respondents including UICL.
3.1 In so far as respondent no. 3, 4 & 5 are concerned, they have filed their counter affidavits. As a matter of fact, respondent no. 4 also filed an additional affidavit dated 26.07.2013, which effectively brought on record certain crucial documents, to which I will be making a reference during the course of my deliberation. The petitioners have filed their rejoinder(s) qua the stand taken in the counter affidavits.
3.2 This is in so far as the main claim in the petition, and the state of the pleading is concerned.
BACKGROUND
4. The bare bones of the case are as follows:
4.1 On 25.05.2011, the services of respondent no.3 were requisitioned for enabling a medical evacuation of a critically ill patient in Patna. Respondent no.3 thus, lent its aircraft for the said purpose, albeit, on hire charges. The type and model of the aircraft, deployed for this purpose, was a Pilatus: PC-12/45, bearing the registration number: VT-ACF (in short the Aircraft).
4.2 On the aforementioned date, the Aircraft took off from Delhi, with a crew of two pilots, a medical team comprising of two doctors and a male nurse. The flight to Patna was uneventful. On return flight, the patient, and one attendant, were taken on board.
4.3 Evidently, the Aircraft encountered a thun
