G.

Ravi Kumar V/S The Gulf Air and Others

Case summary

FACTS:

According to the submissions made by the plaintiff, he was receiving a basic salary of Rs
5000. In the year 2007, he was asked to join M/s. Petroleum services, in Saudi Arabia for
monthly salary of Rs 10,000. He was completing his services at the same time the plaintiff
submitted that he had some medical issues such as muscular weakness, headache and
vomiting. He was admitted in hospital there in Saudi. Due to emergency situation, the
plaintiff asked the Defendant to book a flight from Bahrain to Bangalore on 27/06/2007 at
22.40hrs, and was supposed to reach Bangalore on 28/06/2007 at 5.00hrs. After reaching
the airport, the authorities informed the plaintiff that the aircraft was full and requested
him to fly to Delhi by 23.30hrs, and board a flight from Delhi to Bangalore. This was also
enquired with Gulf Air people whether the plaintiff would be allowed by Jet Airways (3 rd and
4th defendant) to board Delhi to Bangalore flight at 10.00hrs. It was informed by Jet Airways
that the plaintiff can board the connecting flight in Delhi.

Accordingly, the plaintiff boarded the flight and reached Delhi international airport. The
plaintiff on reaching the Delhi International airport went to Domestic terminal and he
checked in boarding to board Delhi-Bangalore flight at 10.00hrs. Checking counters
informed that there is no such confirmation from Gulf Air to board the flight. He informed
the Jet officials that he is becoming terribly sick and he might even die if he didn’t reach to
Bangalore hospital as early as possible. It was stated by the authorities that they could allow
him to board a flight which is on next day, plaintiff left with no option had to agree for it.
The plaintiff submits at the Delhi airport that it started to cause him mental harm and
physical stress. The jet airways authorities made him to sit at airport lounge from 11.00hrs
to 17.30hrs. Also, no room was also given to the plaintiff upon his due request too. At last,
the plaintiff was asked to board his flight at 17.50hrs and reached Delhi at 20.30hrs on
28/06/2007. Due to 15hrs late from the scheduled time it had a serious impact on the
plaintiff body and mind. Upon reaching Bangalore the plaintiff was taken to hospital.
On the very next day Doppler test was performed. The surgeon informed the plaintiff that
both his limbs were dead, and there is an immediate need to perform amputated, or else
there is a threat to the life of plaintiff. Upon doctor say the plaintiff submitted that the
problem of blood clot inside the blood vessel developed in Delhi itself because of delay,
stress, lack of medication and also due to lack of proper medical treatment. It was also
stated that both the limbs could have been treated and saved accordingly if the plaintiff had
reached Bangalore on time. The treatment is still going on and plaintiff is incurring medical
expenditure from different places.

The plaintiff submitted that he had to export limbs from Germany which costed him around
7.9lakhs. Plaintiff submits that his livelihood is completely shattered and have also lost his
job.

The plaintiff submits that the Gulf authorities (1st and 2nd defendants) committed
international misconduct in not confirming with the Jet airways authorities (3rd and 4th
defendants). He further added that the Jet airways authorities have committed reckless
misconduct. Plaintiff submits Defendant 1 and 2 as “contracting carrier” and defendants 3
and 4 as “Actual Carrier” are liable for compensation. The plaintiff submitted the legal
notice on 24/10/2007 with all the necessary documents attached, calling upon the
defendants to pay a sum of 4,83,35,783/- as compensation. Hence the plaintiff has filed the
suit for total recovery of 4,83,35,783/- towards damages and compensation.

ISSUES IN BRIEF:

The main issues raised by Hon’ble Court includes:

1. Whether the court have territorial jurisdiction to try this suit?

2. Whether plaintiff can be entitled for the compensation he claimed for?

3. Can section 86 of CPC be applicable for this suit?

4. The plaintiff had become disable due to the delay caused in airport? or

5. The plaintiff had become disable due to Medical negligence which was negligent on his
part as well?

6. What relief can be provided to the plaintiff.

7. Is there can contract between plaintiff and Jet airways?

LAWS INVOLVED:

The defendants already submitted in their WS that this case doesnt fall under given
territorial jurisdiction. It was stated by defendants that the damage to the plaintiff had
occurred outside India and hence that can’t be prosecuted in India, but as per “extra
territorial jurisdiction” since the Plaintiff belongs to India, he have the right to file a suit in
this Hon’ble Court accordingly.

As per Sec 86 of CPC, it is mentioned that NO foreign state may be sued in any indian courts
unless there is a prior consent taken from Central governement in writing by Secretary to
the govt. Such consent may be given with respect to a specified suit or to several specified
suits or with respect to all suits of any specified class or classes, and may specify, in the case
of any suit or class of suits, the Court in which the foreign State may be sued, but it shall to
be given, unless it appears to the Central Government that the foreign State. In this case as
per Sec 86 of CPC, the Gulf Air and Jet airways can be considered as foreign estates, and
before plaintiff filing a suit, as per this section it is mandatory for the plaintiff to obtain the
consent from government.

As per Sec 73 of Indian contract act, when there is a contract between both the parties and
if such contract is broken, then the party who suffers such breach is entitled to receive
compensation accordingly. “When an obligation resembling those created by contract has
been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it
is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had
contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.” As per this section and the
submissions made by the plaint it can be observed that there is a contract which was
established between the Plaint and Defendant 3 and 4. The Gulf Air authorities have
expressly stated to the Plaintiff that there is a confirmed seat for him to travel From Delhi to
Bangalore at 10.00hrs. So there emerged a contract between Plaintiff and Gulf Authorities.
Gulf authorities breached this contract since they didn’t provide the plaintiff with a
confirmed ticket and due to this the plaintiff had to go through a lot of stress and pain.
Hence Sec 73 of ICA can be invoked here.

In order to discuss about the negligence part, plaintiff was admitted in Astoon hospital and
there he was recommended with “needs Nephrology Consultation, advising kidney biopsy”.
After this the plaintiff had applied for emergency leave and he decided to leave for
Bangalore to meet his Family doctor. Here we can state that it was negligence on part of the
Plaintiff, After the recommendation made by Doctor he could have tested himself in the
hospital and get admitted few days in Astoon hospital itself. There is a clear medical
negligence case which was negligence on part of the Plaintiff itself. He would have got
admitted in Astoon hospital for few days and would have got a proper medical treatment
for himself.

As per the relief part to be considered, Plaintiff can claim compensation only under Sec 73
of ICA since there was a clearly breach of contract between Gulf air authorities and Plaintiff.
Defendant 1 and 2 (I.e Jet airways authorities) no such involvement in this and they cant be
held liable for the same.

Arguments Advanced:

by Gulf authorities (Defendants 1&2):

The defendants 1 and 2 stated that as per CPC 1908, and Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and other
relevant laws stated that, there would raise no cause of action as alleged or at all against the
defendants. It is submitted that the presented suit cant be maintained in this Hon’ble Court,
since there is no “Territorial jurisdiction”. It further written that the liability is only with the
Answering Defendants and the Contract of Carriage by Air is between Plaintiff and
Answering Defendants (I.e. 3rd and 4th defendants). It is also observed that if there is only
contract which lies between the parties, and thus it is limited to the provisions of the
contract. They have made a note that the plaintiff had not suffered any bodily injury on the
board of aircraft or in the course of any day. Therefore the Answering defendants are not
liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff.

Also, as per sec 86 of CPC, the consent of the Central Government must be obtained in
order to constitute a suit. There was no present consent taken from CG, the suit is liable to
be dismissed. It Is also said that the plaintiff had supressed the true facts and the same has
been given para wise.

by Jet Airways Authorities (Defendants 3&4) : Defendants 3 and 4 stated that the
suit filed by the plaintiff against these two defendants, who are not even alleged responsible
for the damages caused to the plaintiff. These two defendants stated in their WS that this is
a case of Medical negligence and the doctors have to be held liable. The defendants stated
that as per Rule 19 of the II schedule of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 states that “in the
absence of any contrary to the contract, the carrier can’t be held liable for the damage
caused”, on this suit the present case can be dismissed. It was put forward by the
defendants that the plaintiff had already developed medical problems such as muscular
weakness, vomiting, headache etc… while being in service in Saudi, and due to such medical
issues, he was admitted in the Hospital. The plaintiff had been apparently suffering from
health issues for more than 14 months. The facts prove that the negligence and carelessness
on part of the plaintiff. The reasons for the sudden discharge of him from Saudi Hospital is
not known yet and is un-understandable.

CONCLUSION:

The plaintiff submits that the defendants 1&2 as carrier and defendants 3&4 as actual
carrier are liable for making compensation to the plaintiff as the damages caused to the
plaintiffs body are solely caused by the delay caused by the wilful misconduct of the
defendants. He also prays that defendants 1&2 and defendants 3&4 are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff for reckless misconduct on their part.

Whereas defendants 1&2 pray that they are not liable in any manner whatsoever, to pay
any amount as compensation to the plaintiff as ther is no direct proximity or relationship
between the delay caused by defendants 3&4 at Bahrain.

Moreover, the damages caused due to the medical condition of the plaintiff is due to his
own negligence and not of the defendants.
Defendants 3&4 submit that the plaintiff had a long history of medical complications and
inspite of that with utter disregard to the recommendations made by the astoon hostpital
authorities he took the long-haul journey. The plaintiff was not vigilant at the time of the
inception of his journey and simply believed the oral confirmation of defendant nos.

As per the case it can be concluded that Plaintiff can’t claim any compensation from Jet
airways authorities. Yet as per section 73 of ICA Gulf Air authorities breached the contract
with the plaintiff hence, he had to suffer long wait in airport lounge which created lot of
damage to his health. Hence the plaintiff can claim only compensation from Gulf air
authorities. Also, plaintiff’s negligence had equally contributed for causing more serious
health issues to the plaintiff.