Mangalore crash: SC notice to AI, Centre on compensation
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre and Air India on a plea seeking minimum Rs 75 lakh compensation for each of the 158 victims of the May 2010 Mangalore air crash.
A bench headed by justice Dalveer Bhandari asked the Centre and the national carrier to file their response and fixed the matter for final hearing in April.
The court passed the order on a petition filed by Abdus Salam, who had lost his son in the crash. Salam's son Rafiq was working in Dubai and was coming home.
Salam approached the apex court challenging the verdict of a division bench of Kerala high court which had set aside a single judge order directing Air India to pay a minimum compensation of Rs 75 lakh to the families of each of the victims.
04/01/12 PTI/Times of India
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Monday, 10 October 2011
mangalore aircrash update
M’lore crash: 12 bodies wrongly identified
Hyderabad: In the Mangalore air crash of May 2010, in at least 12 cases, the body remains were mistakenly identified and claimed by relatives.
The families which claimed the body remains based on morphological features and personal effects performed the last rites presuming that they had rightly identified the mortal remains of their kin.
These facts came out as a result of the DNA profiling done by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) in Hyderabad whose services had been requisitioned following the incident.
It may be mentioned here that on May 22, 2010, the Air India Express flight 1X812 from Dubai had overshot the runway and plunged into a valley at the Mangalore airport. In the mishap, out of the 168 people on board, 158 passengers, including six crew members were killed. A woman and seven men survived the disaster.
What happened following the disaster was, the body remains of 136 victims were handed over to their families who identified and claimed them. But the remains of 22 more victims were not identified. The families could not say for sure whether the victims indeed were their kin. In the DNA profiling that was done for the 22 victims comparing their profiles with 32 relatives who were still waiting to identify their kin, the results that came up threw up a shock.
First, based on the autosomal and Y-chromosome DNA profiling data, scientists established the identities of 10 of the body remains within the next couple of days or so.
However, it was found that the rest of the 12 sets of body remains were not from the biological relatives of any of the claimants. This only show that in the originally claimed body remains of 136 passengers, 12 had been mistakenly identified and claimed by families believing it to be their kin. The findings of the study were also published later in a scientific journal `Current Science'.
Hyderabad: In the Mangalore air crash of May 2010, in at least 12 cases, the body remains were mistakenly identified and claimed by relatives.
The families which claimed the body remains based on morphological features and personal effects performed the last rites presuming that they had rightly identified the mortal remains of their kin.
These facts came out as a result of the DNA profiling done by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) in Hyderabad whose services had been requisitioned following the incident.
It may be mentioned here that on May 22, 2010, the Air India Express flight 1X812 from Dubai had overshot the runway and plunged into a valley at the Mangalore airport. In the mishap, out of the 168 people on board, 158 passengers, including six crew members were killed. A woman and seven men survived the disaster.
What happened following the disaster was, the body remains of 136 victims were handed over to their families who identified and claimed them. But the remains of 22 more victims were not identified. The families could not say for sure whether the victims indeed were their kin. In the DNA profiling that was done for the 22 victims comparing their profiles with 32 relatives who were still waiting to identify their kin, the results that came up threw up a shock.
First, based on the autosomal and Y-chromosome DNA profiling data, scientists established the identities of 10 of the body remains within the next couple of days or so.
However, it was found that the rest of the 12 sets of body remains were not from the biological relatives of any of the claimants. This only show that in the originally claimed body remains of 136 passengers, 12 had been mistakenly identified and claimed by families believing it to be their kin. The findings of the study were also published later in a scientific journal `Current Science'.
Thursday, 15 September 2011
update on the Mangalore aircrash proceedings
Feeling humiliated and harassed, Mangalore Air India Crash Victims Families Association has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court (SC) against a decision of Kerala High Court (HC).
It may be recalled that a single-judge bench of Kerala HC, based on a petition filed by the association, had ordered Air India to pay compensation at the rate of Rs 75 lac per victim relating the above crash. Air India had questioned this decision in the division bench of the HC. The division bench not only stayed operation of the single-judge bench order, but also asked the victims to find a solution to the problem by entering into a process of dialogue with Air India. Aggrieved by the order, the association is thinking of approaching SC.
A meeting of victims of the crash is being held at Sahodaya Hall in the city at 11.30 am on September 18, for discussing the above decision. The meeting is proposed to be organized to hold detailed discussions on the pros and cons, cost, etc of approaching the SC, before taking a final decision.
It may be recalled that a single-judge bench of Kerala HC, based on a petition filed by the association, had ordered Air India to pay compensation at the rate of Rs 75 lac per victim relating the above crash. Air India had questioned this decision in the division bench of the HC. The division bench not only stayed operation of the single-judge bench order, but also asked the victims to find a solution to the problem by entering into a process of dialogue with Air India. Aggrieved by the order, the association is thinking of approaching SC.
A meeting of victims of the crash is being held at Sahodaya Hall in the city at 11.30 am on September 18, for discussing the above decision. The meeting is proposed to be organized to hold detailed discussions on the pros and cons, cost, etc of approaching the SC, before taking a final decision.
Friday, 2 September 2011
SpiceJet gets delivery of the first lot of Q400s
Pictures of the new Q400s delivered to SpiceJet.
Bombardier Aerospace announced today that India’s number one low-cost carrier, SpiceJet has taken delivery of the first two of 15 Q400 NextGen turboprop aircraft ordered in December 2010.
“SpiceJet’s order was a breakthrough for our Q400 NextGen turboprop in the Indian market, and Bombardier’s portfolio of commercial aircraft and customer services continues to be well positioned to support the development of India’s airline network,” said Chet Fuller, Senior Vice President, Sales, Marketing and Asset Management, Bombardier Commercial Aircraft, during a ceremony held yesterday at Bombardier Aerospace’s Toronto facility, where the Q400 NextGen aircraft is manufactured.
SpiceJet will use its Q400 NextGen aircraft for high-frequency, point-to-point services to regional cities, complementing its larger jet aircraft that connect major Indian cities. SpiceJet currently serves 22 destinations in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
“As India experiences substantial growth, many cities and industrial towns remain underserved,” said Kalanithi Maran, Chairman, SpiceJet. “SpiceJet is focused on connecting these burgeoning areas with more than 60 airports that could not be served by larger jets. After an evaluation of all the aircraft in the 60- to 80-seat category, we selected the Q400 NextGen aircraft, which combines excellent reliability, economics and passenger comfort.”
SpiceJet has also signed a 10-year agreement under Bombardier’s comprehensive SmartParts program that will provide a wide spectrum of cost-per-flight-hour maintenance for the airline’s full fleet of Q400 NextGen aircraft.
"The fact that we will be able to proactively budget for traditionally variable expenses and count on optimal repair turnaround times under Bombardier’s SmartParts program is another significant advantage,” said Neil Mills, Chief Executive Officer, SpiceJet.
About Q400 NextGen aircraft
Optimized for short-haul operations, the “comfortably greener,” 70- to 80-seat Q400 NextGen aircraft is a large, fast, quiet and fuel-efficient turboprop. It provides an ideal balance of passenger comfort and operating economics with a reduced environmental footprint. Bombardier has booked firm orders for a total of 412 Q400 and Q400 NextGen aircraft, and as of April 30, 2011, 357 had been delivered. Q400 and Q400 NextGen aircraft, which are in service with more than 30 operators worldwide, have transported more than 167 million passengers and have logged more than 3 million flight hours and over 3.3 million take-offs and landings.
Bombardier Aerospace announced today that India’s number one low-cost carrier, SpiceJet has taken delivery of the first two of 15 Q400 NextGen turboprop aircraft ordered in December 2010.
“SpiceJet’s order was a breakthrough for our Q400 NextGen turboprop in the Indian market, and Bombardier’s portfolio of commercial aircraft and customer services continues to be well positioned to support the development of India’s airline network,” said Chet Fuller, Senior Vice President, Sales, Marketing and Asset Management, Bombardier Commercial Aircraft, during a ceremony held yesterday at Bombardier Aerospace’s Toronto facility, where the Q400 NextGen aircraft is manufactured.
SpiceJet will use its Q400 NextGen aircraft for high-frequency, point-to-point services to regional cities, complementing its larger jet aircraft that connect major Indian cities. SpiceJet currently serves 22 destinations in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
“As India experiences substantial growth, many cities and industrial towns remain underserved,” said Kalanithi Maran, Chairman, SpiceJet. “SpiceJet is focused on connecting these burgeoning areas with more than 60 airports that could not be served by larger jets. After an evaluation of all the aircraft in the 60- to 80-seat category, we selected the Q400 NextGen aircraft, which combines excellent reliability, economics and passenger comfort.”
SpiceJet has also signed a 10-year agreement under Bombardier’s comprehensive SmartParts program that will provide a wide spectrum of cost-per-flight-hour maintenance for the airline’s full fleet of Q400 NextGen aircraft.
"The fact that we will be able to proactively budget for traditionally variable expenses and count on optimal repair turnaround times under Bombardier’s SmartParts program is another significant advantage,” said Neil Mills, Chief Executive Officer, SpiceJet.
About Q400 NextGen aircraft
Optimized for short-haul operations, the “comfortably greener,” 70- to 80-seat Q400 NextGen aircraft is a large, fast, quiet and fuel-efficient turboprop. It provides an ideal balance of passenger comfort and operating economics with a reduced environmental footprint. Bombardier has booked firm orders for a total of 412 Q400 and Q400 NextGen aircraft, and as of April 30, 2011, 357 had been delivered. Q400 and Q400 NextGen aircraft, which are in service with more than 30 operators worldwide, have transported more than 167 million passengers and have logged more than 3 million flight hours and over 3.3 million take-offs and landings.
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
A few thoughts inviting input and consideration from all:
(i) assuming that the argument put forth by the Kerela High Court that upon death of the passenger in the course of carriage by the air carrier, the carrier is bound to make payment of the amount of Rs. 75 lakhs as being 'strict/automatic liability' under the 1st tier is correct, then why/what was the reason for the legislatures/authors of the Montreal Convention 1999 (wich is a common international convention applicable to the countries who have ratified the same on a global level) to insert the words "not exceeding 100,000 SDR's";
(ii) The Kerela High Court further observed that the said amount of Rs. 75 lakhs was to be paid by the carrier as "interim compensation" and that thereafter, the families of the deceased passengers would be entitled to additional payment of the amount that they could prove to be theiractual economic loss......if that be assunmed to be a correct interpretation of the Montreal Convention 1999, the existence of the words "not exceeding 100,000 SDR's " would be redundant; and
(iii) it seems that what has been actually specified/mandated by the Convention is the "maximum libaility and not the minimum liability" under the 1st tier.
However, I guess one would have to wait to get a correct interpretation of the Convention once the appeal has actually been filed and heard !!
(i) assuming that the argument put forth by the Kerela High Court that upon death of the passenger in the course of carriage by the air carrier, the carrier is bound to make payment of the amount of Rs. 75 lakhs as being 'strict/automatic liability' under the 1st tier is correct, then why/what was the reason for the legislatures/authors of the Montreal Convention 1999 (wich is a common international convention applicable to the countries who have ratified the same on a global level) to insert the words "not exceeding 100,000 SDR's";
(ii) The Kerela High Court further observed that the said amount of Rs. 75 lakhs was to be paid by the carrier as "interim compensation" and that thereafter, the families of the deceased passengers would be entitled to additional payment of the amount that they could prove to be theiractual economic loss......if that be assunmed to be a correct interpretation of the Montreal Convention 1999, the existence of the words "not exceeding 100,000 SDR's " would be redundant; and
(iii) it seems that what has been actually specified/mandated by the Convention is the "maximum libaility and not the minimum liability" under the 1st tier.
However, I guess one would have to wait to get a correct interpretation of the Convention once the appeal has actually been filed and heard !!
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Mangalore air crash
Though our sympathies are with the families of all passengers who unfortunately perished in the Mangalore air crash, the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Ernakalum High Court seems to be unreasonable and a misinterpretation of the law on the subject!
Would the families of the deceased passengers actually get their due in the view of the statement made by the Min for Civil aviation that the government has decided not to challenge the order of the Ernakulam HC directing Air India to make payment of 75 lakhs each to the families of the passengers who perished in the ill-fated crash at the Bajpei Airport, Mangalore on 22-05-10? The answer remains a mystery till such time as payment is actually disbursed!
Why would the government not want to exercise its right to challenge the order of the Ernakulam High Court directing Air India to make payment of Rs.75 lakhs each to the families of the passengers who perished in the ill-fated crash at the Bajpei Airport, Mangalore on the 22nd May 2010?? If the government actually thought that the families were legally entitled to the Rs. 75 lakhs compensation, the payment could have been made as early as June-July 2010. The government/Air India needn't have waited for a case to be filed....!!!!!
Would the families of the deceased passengers actually get their due in the view of the statement made by the Min for Civil aviation that the government has decided not to challenge the order of the Ernakulam HC directing Air India to make payment of 75 lakhs each to the families of the passengers who perished in the ill-fated crash at the Bajpei Airport, Mangalore on 22-05-10? The answer remains a mystery till such time as payment is actually disbursed!
Why would the government not want to exercise its right to challenge the order of the Ernakulam High Court directing Air India to make payment of Rs.75 lakhs each to the families of the passengers who perished in the ill-fated crash at the Bajpei Airport, Mangalore on the 22nd May 2010?? If the government actually thought that the families were legally entitled to the Rs. 75 lakhs compensation, the payment could have been made as early as June-July 2010. The government/Air India needn't have waited for a case to be filed....!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)