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 !!