AI crash payout: "Nanavati trying to fool people"

I was amazed by the statement made in the press conference held on September 12 by HD Nanavathi of Mulla & Mulla Associates representing the insurers of Air India. Mr Nanavathi is trying to fool the relatives of Mangalore air crash victims and also the people in general. First of all, let me correct Mr. Nanavathi that it is ‘The Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act, 2009’ which incorporates the provisions of Montreal Convention and not ‘Carriage by Air Act-1972’ as claimed by him. The said Act came into effect in India from 30^th June 2009.

Montreal Convention puts a two tier liability on airlines for death or injury. The first tier prescribes a liability of “up to” SDR100, 000 (which is equivalent to almost USD 160,000 or Rs70,00, 000) which is non-contestable by airlines. This wording “up to” is included because the liability for death and injury is included in the same provision. If it is a case of death, the airline should be liable for the full amount of SDR100, 000. Mr. Nanavathi has dragged in some fictional terminologies of “loss of livelihood” and “loss of lives”. The question of loss of livelihood and proof of loss arises only in the case of injury, not in the case of death. So under first tier, SDR 100,000 can’t be contested either by Air India or by their insurers at all.

The second tier that is liability in excess of SDR 100,000 can be objected by the airline only if it can prove that the death or injury is not caused by the negligence of the airline or its staff. In other words, the relatives of the air crash victims can claim damages more than SDR 100,000 since the accident was a clear case of negligence by the pilot. Air India will not be in a position to claim that its staff was not negligent. I strongly suggest to claim at least SDR 200,000 per person. If Air India is threatened with more claims, they may come on to their knee.

Also, I would recommend that all the relatives, together, should approach the court at the earliest since there is a time limit of two years for any claim to be made. Now what I can see from the part of Air India and their insurers is to drag the matter for two years and then they may site the reason of limitation. Mr. Nanavathi has taken the first step by trying to convince the people that the international law is complex and may consume enough time. Montreal Convention rules are very clear and simple.

It is better to approach an experienced solicitor of good repute and offer him certain percentage from the compensation received. Unfortunately, initially when a firm of lawyers approached to act on behalf of the victims’ families for a fee, we suspected them. It would have been a right decision if we had hired them.

We have a very strong case; we should not lose the case on technical grounds. Taking an informed decision is very much required at this time. Taking out processions and visiting Air India offices will not have any use.

Abdulla Madumoole works as a Financial Controller at Zayed Foundation Abu Dhabi, UAE

Comments