A.K. Basheer, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated August 5, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners have filed this writ appeal contending, inter alia, that the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside Ext. P3 award passed by the permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which led to the filing of the writ petition may be briefly noticed.
3. Respondent No. 2, who was a passenger in one of the flights operated by the first appellant Airlines from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram had booked two baggages in the course of his journey on September 9, 2005. One of the baggages weighing 42 Kgs. was found missing on his arrival at Thiruvananthapuram. To make a long story short, the baggage was never recovered and the appellants agreed to pay compensation to the passenger at the rate of 20 US Dollars per Kg. in accordance with Clause 22 of Schedule 2 of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'). The amount thus quantified would come to Rs. 30,688/-.
4. Respondent No. 2 challenged the said decision taken by the Airlines before the permanent Lok Adalat and claimed a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Lok Adalat after considering the rival contentions of the parties, passed Ext. P3 award directing the Airlines to pay a sum of Rs. 1,43,673/- with 12% interest thereon from the date of the petition till realization. The said award was challenged in the writ petition.
5. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment took the view that the Airlines should have been more diligent and careful in handling the baggages of the passengers and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the passenger ought to have got a more reasonable compensation. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Lok Adalat for fresh consideration after affording, if necessary, an opportunity to respondent No. 2 to amend his pleadings appropriately in order to enable him to plead and prove his case under Clause 25 of Schedule 2 of the Act.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. In the course of hearing learned Counsel for the parties had agreed to appear before the Mediation Centre to see whether an amicable settlement would be possible. However, the attempt fizzled out and it is thus that the parties are before us yet again.
7. As mentioned earlier, the appellants have agreed to compensate the passenger by paying compensation at the rate of 20 US Dollars per Kg. According to the appellants, it is in terms of Clause 22 of the Act. However, Clause 25 of the Act reads thus:
25. The limits of liability specified in Rule 22 shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that he was acting within the scope of his employment.
8. The learned Single Judge apparently had taken note of the above clause and held that the entire matter has to be reconsidered in the light of the above clause. The learned Judge had also placed reliance on a decision rendered by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in this regard.
9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties. In our view, it would be advisable to both the parties to give a quietus to the issue rather than the matter being remitted to the Lok Adalat with opportunity to the passenger to amend his pleadings and adduce further evidence. Yet again, the question whether there was any reckless or wilful negligence on the part of the appellants is a matter which may remain elusive in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, even if the parties are directed to adduce further evidence.
10. In our view, interests of justice will be met if a quietus is given here itself. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned judgment, we direct the appellants to pay a sum of Rupees one lakh to respondent No. 2 towards compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, viz. 13.10.2006, till the date of realization. The amount shall be paid by the appellants within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by way of demand draft in the name of respondent No. 2.
11. Writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.