BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 23^rd day of December 2015

Filed on : 17-01-2012

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No. 30/2012

Between

1. Mini, : Complainants

W/o. Late Kaitha Valappil (By Adv. C.V. Manuvilsan

Narayanan Rajan, Kottanallur, M/s. Lex-Loci, The Associates

Near, Chalakkudy, High Court of Kerala,APM build-

Irinjalakuda, Thrissur. ing, North Railway Station Road,

Kochi-18)

2. Neethu Rajan,

D/o. Late Kaitha Valappil

Narayanan Rajan, Kottanallur,

Near Chalakkudy/Irinjalakuda,

Thrissur.

3. Jithin Raju,

S/o. Late Kaitha Valappil

Narayanan Rajan, Kottanallur,

Near Chalakkudy/Irinjalakuda,

Thrissur.

And

1. M/s. Cochin International Airport : Opposite parties

Nedumbassery P.O., Cochin, (1^st o.p.by Adv. Joson Manavalan

Kerala, Rep. By its Director. M/s. Menon & Pai, I.S. Press

Road, Ernakulam,

Kochi-682 018)

2. M/s. Oman Air, 5a, k.g. (By Adv. Prakash P. George,

Oxford Business Centre, 2^nd Floor, Vivail Building,

Sreekandathu road, Ravipuram, K.K. Padmanabhan Road,

Kochi-16, rep. By its Manager. Cochin-18)

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

The case of the complainant

The wife and two children of late Kaithavalappil Narayanan Rajan, who expired on 22-06-2011, due to the alleged negligence and deficiency in service of the Opposite parties, namely the airport and airlines personnel, are the complainants in this case.

Complainant’s case.

On 22-06-2011, the deceased K.N.Rajan, aged 54, had arrived at Kochi International Airport, accompanied by the complainants and his son in law Mr. Sanju at 04.00 hrs., in order to fly to Saudi Arabia by Flight No. WY-224, scheduled for departure at 7-15 a. m. After dropping him, the complainants and Mr. Sanju waited outside the airport, awaiting the take off of the flight. Meanwhile, they received a call from Rajan informing that he had already checked in his baggage and obtained his boarding pass. After some time, someone had made a call to Mr. Sanju, from Rajan’s mobile handset, informing him that Rajan had fallen down in the air port and has been admitted at the Amritha Hospital’s Emergency Unit, functioning inside the air port, and requisitioning his immediate presence at the emergency unit. On hastening to the emergency unit, Mr. Sanju found Rajan lying unconscious in the hospital bed, in the presence of a hospital unit staffer on duty, who informed that Rajan might have endured a heart attack. He could not find any one near Rajan, who was interested to save his life, by providing intense care on him. The air port authorities and the Amrita Hospital unit authorities insisted Mr. Sanju to take Sri Rajan in their car, to the nearest multispecialty hospital, Little flower hospital, Angamaly, situated within a distance of 10 Kilometers, immediately. The opposite parties had neither arranged an ambulance service to reposition the patient to the hospital safely nor arranged any staffer to accompany him. On arrival at hospital, the staff of that hospital had taken care of the patient, but later informed that the patient died at 5.45 a.m. The complainants had to run pillar to post for getting the death certificate of late Rajan, and it was belatedly issued by the hospital authorities. The death was due to the negligence of the opposite parties, in not providing adequate care and medical service to the deceased. The opposite parties had handled the situation in a most irresponsible manner, and by doing so, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. The complainant had issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 12-08-2011, claiming compensation and it was responded with a reply notice raising indefensible contentions. The complainants therefore seek redressal of their grievance by providing an order of compensation to the tune of Rs. 19, 00,000/- from the opposite parties .

2. Notice

Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They received the notice, appeared and disputed their liability in the matter, by filing individual versions.

3.Version of 1^st opposite Party.

The complainants are not consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1985, and the subject matter of the complaint does not pertain to service. The allegations of culpable negligence and deficiency in serviced against the Opposite Party are wrong. The deceased who was expected to travel to Saudi Arabia in Flight No.WY 224 at 07.15 Hrs had voluntarily approached the duty Dr. at 04.50 Hrs. in the medical room functioning in the air port, complaining of sluggish speech and history of recent vomiting. On examination, the duty doctor found that his condition is deteriorating with pulse rate of 63/min and BP 108/62 mm of Hg. The doctor suspected a cardiac failure and advised that the passenger should be hospitalized immediately for intensive care. First aid medicines like Sorbitrate 10mg, Aspirin 150 mg, and Renitab150 mg were administered for immediate relief and on the information given by the patient, his son in law who was waiting outside was called in the mobile handset of the patient. A person by name Sanju, identified as his son in law, immediately came to the medical room and insisted to take the patient in his car to Little Flower hospital, Angamaly, as against the advice of the duty doctor to take him in an ambulance which was available in the airport, as according to him the car was faster than the ambulance van. The first opposite party came to know about the death of the passenger only when the relatives approached the 1^st OP for obtaining a medical certificate confirming the death of the person in order to get the death certificate. On 22-07-2011, the Airport director had requested the Mg. Director of Little Flower Hospital to issue a medical certificate confirming the death of late Rajan as the death was at Little Flower Hospital. Late rajan was alive when he was taken from the airport by the relatives in the car. The death certificate was prepared at Little Flower Hospital on 25-07-2011. The allegation that Rajan died in the premises of the airport is false and the airport medical officer could not issue a death certificate as insisted by the complainants. Dr. Rahul Thampi had recorded in the medical inspection register that first aid was given and the patient was referred to Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly. The death has to be reported from the Hospital and it has to be obtained from the local body. The 1^st OP seeks exoneration.

4. Version of 2^nd Opposite Party

The complainants are not consumers of OP2, in so far as the services in the Kochi International Airport are concerned. The 2^nd OP has no liability in this case, since the liability of Carrier for damages arises only upon condition that the death happens in an accident, which occurs on board the flight or in the course of embarkation or disembarkation. The complaint is not maintainable as against OP2. The passenger concerned was provided with a boarding pass for carriage. But he did not enter the flight to avail the services due to his death. There was no sanction of the Central Government under sec. 86 of CPC. There is no allegation of any deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd OP in respect of any matter for which their services was hired by the passenger. The passenger had checked in by the counter staff of the ground handling agent of Oman Air in Kochi International Airport, and he was issued with a boarding pass as per his reservation. The staff of OP2 received information that the passenger Mr. Rajan had visited the Medical emergency unit at the airport for a checkup. A staffer of Oman Air rushed to the emergency medical unit to provide assistance to the passenger. The passenger did not inform any discomfort to the staff of the 2^nd OP, after obtaining the boarding pass and before going to the medical emergency unit. Normally, after obtaining the boarding pass, the passenger was expected to go through the formalities in security check, Emigration clearance, and customs and proceed to the lounge, for boarding the flight. During such time, without any information to the airline staff, they will not know about the whereabouts of the passenger, unless intimated. On being informed about the matter, the staff of Oman Air informed the matter to the son of the passenger and others who were waiting outside, and the passenger was offloaded with his one piece of checked in baggage, and it was handed over to his son without any procedure wrangles. Oman Air had done whatever they could in the attendant circumstances, although it was peak time of duties in the airport due to closing of check-in and completion of their mandatory formalities, prelude to the take off of the aircraft. The members of the family of the deceased did not ask for any service from Oman Air, other than what they did on humanitarian gesture. The staff of Oman Air was present to assist the patient in the medical unit at Air port. The claim is exorbitant, hypothetical and abuse of process of the consumer forum. Complainants are not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

5. The Evidence

The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 Neethu Rajan, the daughter, PW2 Mr. Sanju the son in law of the deceased and Exhibits A1 to A5 on the part of the complainant and the oral evidence of DW1 Mr. A.Chandrakumaran Nair, the Airport Director, DW2 Dr. Rahul Thampi the medical officer of the Air port and DW3 Mr. Jaimon Thomas K., the security supervisor of Oman Air and Exhibits B1 and B2 on the part of the Opposite Parties.

6. Issues

1. Whether the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable?

2. If so, whether there was any proved deficiency of service at the hands of both the opposite parties?

3. The quantum of damages, if any, found awardable and the nature of liability on each opposite party.

4. Reliefs and cost.

7. Issue No. 1

The learned counsel for the 1^st OP submitted that the complainants cannot be said to be consumers, within the meaning of consumer under sec. 2 (1) (d) of the C.P Act 1986, as no service was undertaken by the 1^st OP Airport from the complainants, and further that the subject matter of the complaint does not pertain to service. The learned counsel for the complainants on the other hand argued that the complainants who are the wife and children of the deceased, are entitled to pursue the matter, with reference to the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties to the deceased passenger, as the legal heirs, and that the negligence on the part of the opposite parties in giving proper and required care to the deceased passenger would amount to deficiency of service. The 1^st opposite party, had undoubtedly undertaken the task, to manage the airport, to provide air traffic service and air safety service, to regulate and control entry and exit of the passengers and visitors at the airport, to provide transport services to the passengers and to have due consideration for the safety, protection and well being of the passengers, while rendering those services. The 1^st OP is collecting the service charges from each passenger, while buying the air travel ticket. The management of the Airport is required to provide facilities to the passengers who enter the airport with a valid air ticket or boarding pass. This is part of terminal service which is required to be rendered by the Airport authorities. Establishment of a medical emergency unit in the airport is one of such essential services. Therefore it is clear that the passengers with required documents are entitled get services from the 1^st opposite party and consequently each passenger is a consumer of the 1^st opposite party as well. Issue is accordingly found in support of the complainant’s case.

8. Issue No.2

Deceased Rajan was a passenger on 22-06-2011 in Oman Air in flight number WY 224 bound for Muscat from Kochi. He had obtained the boarding pass after check-in and transmission of baggage. The ground handling agent of Oman Air during the relevant period was M/s Bird World Flight service, as stated by DW3 Jaimon Thomas K, the security supervisor of Oman Air. DW3 has categorically given evidence that the responsibility of the health safety care in the air port is vested in the 1^st Opposite Party, CIAL. The medical unit in the airport is controlled by CIAL. DW3 further says that OP2 received information from the terminal manager of CIAL, at about 4.30- 4.45 am, that the passenger in question required immediate medical attention and immediately one Mr. Rajan Joseph, had rushed to the medical unit at the airport. It was Sri Rajan Joseph who called the son in law of the passenger through the mobile handset of the passenger, to put in the picture regarding the condition of the passenger, and informed to rush to the medical unit urgently. Permission for his entry was granted by the Terminal manger. The baggage of the passenger was recalled and handed over to the son of the passenger at about 5. 30 am., as per the statement of DW3. The passenger fell ill even prior to the immigration clearance and, security check. The duty doctor who attended the passenger in the medical unit found that the blood pressure was low and accordingly advised to approach the nearby hospital having sufficient diagnostic and treatment facilities. The son-in-law and daughter of the passenger came inside the airport and took the passenger to Little Flower Hospital Angamaly which is at a distance of about 5-6 Kms. DW3 says that the passenger died on the way to the hospital and the doctors at LF Hospital had declared that he was brought dead. DW3 asserts that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Oman Air. D2 Dr. Rahul Thampi who was in charge of the medical unit at the relevant time, had given evidence that the passenger had come to the medical unit and told him that he find difficulty to speak and that he had one episode of vomiting. He was looking tired too. DW2 doubted that he passenger had a minor heart attack and felt the necessity to shift him urgently to a well equipped hospital for effective medical management. According to DW2, he told the relatives of the passenger that the patient needs to be shifted to the hospital in an ambulance van, but they said that they will take him in the car. Ext. B2 is the written report prepared by him on 23-07-2011 regarding the incident occurred on 22-06-2011. It is worthwhile to note that even in the report prepared by DW2 after a month of the incident, there was no case for him that the service of an ambulance was requisitioned for the safe shifting of a patient who had the pulse rate of 63/min, and B.P 108/62mm of Hg. The patient was taken to the car in a wheel chair and at that time his pulse rate was 53/min and BP was 100/60mm of Hg. The passenger was given 10mg of Sorbitrate a drug for vasodilatation. DW2 admitted that he knew that administration of sorbitrate would reduce the blood pressure, but it was administered as a life saving drug. As there was no machine to take ECG, in the Medical unit, it was not taken to confirm the possibility of a heart attack. It is seen from Ext. B1 the copy of the relevant page of the medical register, that the patient was referred to L.F. Hospital and that the relatives of the patient had taken him in a car. Ext. B1 is silent with regard to the claim of the opposite parties that even though ambulance was offered, the relatives preferred to take the patient in their car.

It is seen from the evidence of PW2 Mr. Sanju Gopinath, that he received a blank call from the mobile phone of the passenger Mr. Rajan, his father in law. Since it was a blank call, PW2 called back in that number and at that time some unknown person had picked up the phone and had informed him that his father in law had collapsed and is being admitted in the medical emergency unit, and asking him to reach at once, at the medical emergency unit. When PW2 reached the emergency unit, he saw his father in law Sri.Rajan, lying in the bed, unconscious and unresponsive. He found none, attending the patient and was unable find the person who had attended his telephone call, when he called back in response to the blank call. However it was informed from the medical emergency unit that the patient required immediate hospitalization. When PW2 requested for the ambulance facility to transfer his father in law to the hospital, the airport authorities and the medical emergency unit personnel insisted the witness to take the patient in his car, to the hospital. Even the request of PW2 to provide the help of some medical staff to take the patient to the nearest hospital was also turned down by the airport and emergency medical unit personnel. After nearly 40-45 minutes the staff of the 1^st OP had transported the patient in a wheel chair in a very careless manner in such a way as to brush his feet through the floor until the departure area where the car of PW2 was parked. To crown all, the son of the patient, the 3^rd complainant, a minor boy, was asked to wait in the airport, to accept the baggage and to make the necessary clearing formalities. PW2, having been put in a difficult situation, was constrained to leave the 3^rd complainant, the son of the passenger, at the airport. The evidence of DW3 that the baggage was handed over to the son of the passenger at about 5.30 am would corroborate this statement.

Since the passenger was dead on arrival, the L F Hospital authorities refused to issue a death certificate, by throwing that responsibility to the air port hospital unit. The death certificate was required to claim the service benefits of the deceased from the employer, insurers and the like. Finally the death certificate was prepared by L.F. Hospital authorities, but they wanted an acknowledgment from PW2 stating that the complainants were satisfied with the facilities provided by the opposite parties and that a medical staff had accompanied the patient from airport to LF Hospital. Hotheaded with the unseemly attitude of the hospital authorities in the matter, PW2 sought an appointment with the P R O of the 1^st opposite party, which was refused at first, and later granted. However, the PRO of the 1^st opposite party had told PW2 that if they could make an airport, they could as well run it properly and that the witness need not make rules and regulations for them. This attitude of the 1^st opposite party had impelled PW2 and the complainants to approach the Chief Minister with the help of a human right activist. On 12-08-2011, the complainants had issued a legal notice to the opposite parties (Ext. A4) claiming compensation, which was replied on 15-09-2011(Ext. A5). This complaint was thereafter filed on 17-01-2011.

During cross examination of PW1 the daughter of the deceased, PW1 has categorically stated that her father was taken out of the airport after about 40-45 minutes after his entry into the airport. When she saw her father in the medical unit of the airport, the odds and ends of the vomit was found all over his body which was not cleaned. There was considerable unexplained delay on the part of the opposite parties in providing emergency medical attention to the passenger and there was also blameworthy delay in providing adequate expert management of the illness. No steps were taken by the opposite parties to get the ambulance service, in order to transfer the patient down for the count, to the hospital having adequate facility to handle the emergency situation. The comatose patient was kept in the wheel chair in such a way as to yank his leg on the floor. There was not even the support and assistance of any airport staff to transfer her cataleptic father from the wheel chair to their car parked at the parking lot of the airport. The minor son of the patient was detained in the airport to sign the papers and to complete the formalities in order to clear the baggage of his offloaded father who was unable to travel due to the sudden illness. Even the air ticket fare of the divested passenger was not paid back. According to PW1, the premature death of her father occurred because of the culpable negligence of the opposite parties, who did not ensure the required medical facilities to the passengers and even the visitors of the airport.

According to complainants, the death of the passenger Rajan, was not at all a natural one, but it was a death occurred solely due to the negligence of the 1^st opposite party to make available adequate medical service, to a consumer who was in pressing need of care. Being an international airport, the opposite parties were expected to provide much more attention to the safety of its consumers. Instead of discharging the constitutional/human obligation and sense of duty to save the valuable life, the opposite party had handled the situation in a most reckless way. By doing so, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. It was further argued that by refusing even the death certificate, the 1^st opposite party had added more salt to the wound of the complainants who lost the only bread winner of the family at his age of 54.

It was further argued that the administration of wrong medicine at the airport medical unit had augmented the death of the patient. According to the learned counsel for the complainant “sorbitrate” should not have been prescribed for a person with a low pulse rate. The absence of an ECG machine in the air port clinic was another deficiency in service pointed out, as a timely ECG could have saved the life of the patient rather than making guess work by the duty doctor in the medical unit. Fabrication of Ext. B1 and B2 by the opposite parties was another allegation. The failure of the medical officer, in not providing ‘aspirin’ to the patient, to prevent blood clot, on suspected angina was another point of assail.

Though the learned counsel argued that administration of ‘sorbitrate’ on a low B.P patient was dangerous, nothing has been brought out in evidence to substantiate such a contention’ Either a medical expert could have been examined or an authentic medical text book could have been brought in, to prove the authenticity and dependability of such a contention heaved by the learned counsel for the complainants. It is also true that the administration of aspirin to the patient did not find a place in the extract of the medical register (Ext.B1), but it is seen noted in Ext. B2 and claimed by DW2 the doctor who treated the passenger at airport medical unit. DW2 had explained that the non-mentioning of the administration of aspirin in Ext. B1 was an unintentional omission. The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that the reason for the untimely death of the father of the 2^nd and 3^rd complainants is attributable to the mal administration of the drugs at airport medical unit, cannot therefore be acknowledged as such. The production of the referral letter issued to LF Hospital, if any, could have thrown much more light, regarding the matter. Unfortunately such a document has not been produced by the opposite parties. DW2 has given a hunch to us regarding the primeval facilities provided in the medical unit in an international airport owned and managed by the 1^st opposite party, which demand rectification and upgrading. The non-availability of a properly working ECG machine, and equipments for oxygen supply etc., tell about the sorry state of affairs in the medical unit, justifying a conclusion of deficient service alleged by the complainants.

Further, we are of the view that the opposite parties had provided a squalid and sordid service to the deceased passenger and also to the complainants in this case, by not providing the service of an ambulance to take the waning patient to a well equipped hospital, at the most critical and decisive point of time when he was hankering for his life. The averment in the version and argument of the learned counsel that the patient’s relatives had chosen to take the unconscious patient in their car is unpersuasive and inadequate to absolve their liability in providing sufficient life saving service to the plunging patient, circumscribed within the security limit of the opposite parties, by virtue of the boarding pass held by him. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW1 and 2 regarding the way in which the patient was looked after and carried in the wheel chair up to the car from the Medical unit of the airport. We find in evidence, a very disappointing state of service in Cochin International Airport, in the matter of maintaining the requisite standard and nature of performance of their duty towards the consumers. The doctor in charge of the airport or at least a trained nurse should have accompanied the patient who ought to have been taken to a well equipped hospital in an ambulance supported with life saving oxygen supply. The 1^st opposite party having charged fees, rent etc were contractually liable to ensure that proper amenities were made available to the passengers and visitors at the airport. The 1^st opposite party, by permitting the unconscious passenger to be carried to a hospital in a car by their relatives, who were strangers to the locality, without providing the ambulance facility with sufficient staff to assist, had exposed a clear case of lack of alertness and sensitivity in handling the situation and also had committed culpable negligence and deficiency in service of a higher degree.

The 2^nd Opposite party through DW3 had adduced evidence to support their stand that they were doing only a charity in sending a staffer to the medical unit to assist the ailing passenger, even though they were not legally bound to render any help to the passenger so long as he did not board the flight. Even though it is stated that one Mr. Rajan Joseph was deployed to lend a hand to the sick passenger, he was not found anywhere by PW1 and 2. OP2 could have proved the claim by examining the said Rajan Joseph. Such a motion was not seen made in this case. Therefore we find that the claim of backing given to the sick passenger in the airport by the 2^nd OP is far-fetched.

The liability in connection with the incidents arising in the course of embarkation or disembarcation of the aircraft on the passengers is governed by the Carriage by Air Act 1972.

Sec. 4 of the Carriages by Air Act 1972 provides that the rules contained in the second schedule shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, have the force of law in India in relation to any carriage by air to which these rules apply, irrespective of the nationality of the aircraft performing the carriage. Again, Rule 5 (1) of the very same Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, or any other enactment or rule in force in any part of India, the rules contained in the first and second schedule shall in all cases to which those rules apply, determine the liability of the carrier in respect of the death of a passenger. Act. 17 of the second schedule of the Act makes the carrier liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operation of embarking or disembarking.

Now, the question, as to whether the deceased had the fateful disaster during the course of embarkation is to be responded. It is the admitted case of all concerned that the deceased reached the check-in counter of the opposite party 2, in time, with a valid air ticket and baggage. The baggage was handed over to the ground handling crew of the 2^nd opposite party for dissemination to the aircraft belonging to the 2^nd opposite party and the identity tag was pasted on the boarding pass held by the deceased passenger, who later on entered the security area where entry of any persons other than the passengers and officials are prohibited. Having entrusted the baggage to the 2^nd opposite party and proceeded to the aircraft for boarding it, the deceased passenger had initiated the procedure of boarding the aircraft. It is also the admitted case of the 2nd opposite party, that in the normal and routine course of events, an international passenger who received the boarding pass shall go through the security, emigration, customs and other formalities and proceed to the lounge for boarding the flight. These are the formalities during the embarkation. The process of embarkation commences when the name of the passenger is enlisted in the flight chart. The submission by the learned counsel for the second OP that the liability of the 2^nd OP begins only after the passenger had physically entered into the aircraft is beyond comprehension. Such a narrow interpretation is not sustainable and we find that late Rajan was subjected to the proved deficient services, during the course of operation of embarking. Issue is therefore found in favour of the complainants and against both the opposite parties.

9. Issue No. 3

The passenger late Rajan is survived by the complainants who are the wife and two children. At the time of death, the deceased was an NRI, aged 54, working abroad. No evidence has been let in, to throw some light on the income earned by the deceased. The helpless wife and children of the deceased cannot be expected to bring in evidence from abroad to prove the actual income of the deceased who was the only breadwinner of the family. The second complainant, daughter of the deceased has been married away just prior to the death of the passenger, late Rajan. The 3^rd complainant was a minor at the time of the death of his father. The 1^st complainant wife of the deceased lost her husband at the age of 45 years. Therefore some speculation has to be done to arrive at the quantum of compensation to be ordered for payment. Bearing in mind, the loss sustained by the family on account of the love and affection, consortium and other relevant considerations, we find that the complainants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 15 Lakhs from the opposite parties, whose liability is found joint and several. Both opposite parties are to be directed, to make the payment shared out equally.

Under the Montreal Convention, air carriers are strictly liable for proven damages up to 113,100 Special Drawing Rights (XDR), a mix of currency values established by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The jurisdictional provisions of Warsaw was amended in the Convention which now allows the victim or their families to sue foreign carriers where they maintain their principal residence and requires all air carriers to carry liability insurance. In fact, the Montreal Convention was brought about mainly to amend the liabilities to be paid to the families for death or injury happened during air travel. We therefore apportion the liability of 2^nd opposite party for payment of 8152 XDR (=7,50,031 INR) and the liability of the 1^st opposite party is at Rs. 7,50,000/-. The 1^st complainant is entitled to receive 50% of the said amount and complainants 2 & 3 are entitled to receive 25% each of the total compensation.

1. 10. Issue No. 4. In the result, we allow the complaint as follows:

1. 1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation to the complainants.

   2. The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- or its equivalent amount of XDR as on date of payment to the complainants

   3. The compensation so paid shall be apportioned by the complainants in 50:25:25 Ratio.

The above said order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of December 2015.

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/ByOrder,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Exbt. A1 : Copy of pass post

A2 : e Ticket Receipt

A3 : Copy of news paper cutting

A4 : Copy of letter dt. 12-08-2011

A5 : Copy of letter dt. 15-09-2011

Opposite party’s Exhibits: :

Exbt. B1 : Copy of page of register page

Nos. 366, 367

B2 : Report dt.23-07-2011

Deposition

PW1 : Neethu Rajan

PW2 : Sanju Gopinath

DW1 : A. Chandrakumaran Nair

DW2 : Dr. Rahul Thampi

DW3 : Jaimon Thomas K

Copy of order despatched on:

By Post: By Hand: