India (Uoi) And Anr. on 29 August, 1997 Equivalent citations: I (2000) ACC 80
Abhinandan Rai BBA LLB, 6 semester th
SOA National Institute of Law,
Bhubaneswar FACTS • The wife of one Jagamohan Toshniwal, who died in an Air trash of Airbus A-320, made a claim for payment of compensation in respect of the death of her husband in the said accident and was offered compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,01,000/- by the defendant. • She contended that sum of Rs. 5,01,000/- is to inadequate when compared to the actual loss suffered by her and other members of her family due to untimely death of her husband. She alleged that the accident leading to the death of her husband occurred on account of total negligence on the part of the staff and due to the manufacturing defect in the aircraft. • She stated that her husband was the sole bread winner of the family and died at a comparatively young age and was thus deprived their only source of income. Cont… • She also stated that she and other members of the family decided not to accept the offer made by them as the same is conditional and binding them against all legitimate future claim. • A reply was sent by Advocates, Solicitors of the ‘Indian Airlines Corporation’ stating that under the law in all cases of domestic carriage, the amount of compensation is in a fixed sum and does not depend upon the actual loss claimed to have been suffered. In the circumstances the 2nd respondent would have no option but to make payment of fixed sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for loss of life and Rs. 1,000/- for the loss of baggage. • Thereafter a writ petition is presented before this Court. Legislative provisions • Rule 22 of Schedule II of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (limit of liability, for passenger 2,50,000 francs and for goods 250 francs per kilogram) • Section 5 of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 ( liability in case of death) • Section 8(2) of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 ( power of central govt. in domestic internal carriage) • Chapter III of Under Rule 17 of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 ( liability of carrier if death caused to passenger) • Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India Issues 1. Whether Section 8(2) of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 confers an unfettered power on the Central Government to modify the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act suffers from the vice of excessive delegation? 2. Whether Fixing different liabilities for domestic air travel and international air travel is major modification of the Act and is ultra vires of Article 14? 3. Whether life has the same value whether domestic or international passenger under Article 21 or not? Argument Advanced For issue 1
• it was submitted that the Parliament has been authorised to
modify the provisions mentioned in the Act in its delegation, and time to time the amount of compensation is being revised by the parliament. • Therefore the court held, the petitioner has not been able to establish that the aforesaid provisions are in any way ultra vires or amount to excessive delegation which is essentially a legislative power. Issue 2 • It is contended by petitioner that the enactment itself emerged as a result of the Hague Protocol and therefore should not treat national carrier different from an international carrier and should put on par with international computation and the enactment should ensure that Air passengers will get a higher level of compensation. • The essential feature of the Act was to ensure the Air passenger higher level of compensation and therefore the modification amounts to modification of essential features which can only be made by Legislature and therefore is unconstitutional. To support this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in Raj Narain Singh v. Chairman P.A. Committee . The fact that there are two classes of Air travel, domestic and international, is taken note of by the Legislature, is indisputable. • When there is recognition of distinction in the air travel as domestic and international, provision is made under Section 8 to apply the said provisions which are applicable to international carriage to. domestic carriage with modification. It obviously means it was the intention of the Legislature to apply different standards. What those different standards could be, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a case where domestic travel is involved details will have to be worked out and in respect of those details, adaptations and modifications could be made and that legislative intent is very clear. • Therefore if in application of those principles different rates are prescribed for fixing the compensation payable in case of death or injury or loss of baggage as a result of an accident such a provision cannot be attacked as resulting in excessive delegation nor it can be contended that the same is ultra vires the provisions. Issue 3 • It is contended by petitioner that the differentiation between domestic and international Air passengers bears no relation to the object of the Act. The class for which the Act caters to is the 'Air passenger' and therefore the classification is not based on any rational criteria. Their rights and liabilities towards an international passenger and a domestic air passenger being substantially same, the classification of them into two different groups is opposed to Article 14. The only difference between domestic and international passenger is one of destination. But so far as risk is concerned that it is identical. A cheaper air ticket does not necessarily mean that the cost of life could be quantified at a lower rate and therefore it is contended that the classification is not based on any comprehensible differentia. Cont… • The limits of liability have been raised from time to time bearing in mind that value of the rupee. • Therefore, we cannot say that the authorities have adopted any irrational classification between domestic air passengers and international air passengers and in law no absolute uniformity or equality can be brought about. judgment • However Mr. Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that even on fair basis the value could be ascertained with reference to the word 'fixed' under relevant notification issued by the Government under Section 8(2) of the Act, still the same is invalid inasmuch as the law does not take note of the present value of the rupee. • We have already adverted to this aspect of the matter and stated that from time to time there has been revision in the amount of compensation paid while it started from Rs. 1,20,000/- to present value is fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/-. Possibly what had been fixed in the year 1989 may need revision now. • But that is no reason to hold the provisions and the notification issued to be ultra vires the Act. In that view of the matter, we find there is not merit in this petition. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainment, G. W. Black and R. E. Gardner, and Cross-Appellees v. The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, and Cross-Appellant, 338 F.2d 407, 10th Cir. (1964)