On the evening of August 7, 2020, Air India Express Flight 1344 crashed with 190 people on board during a botched landing attempt at Kozhikode Calicut International Airport. Eighteen people were killed in the Air India c

The given case is similar to the case decided by Supreme Court in the case of D.M. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swapna Nayak & Ors. The facts of the case D.M. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swapna Nayak & Ors are that Mathurananda Nayak, a resident of U.S.A., and his mother Jita Nayak along with two others while coming from Cuttack collided with a truck. As a result of the said accident, Mathurananda Nayak, Jita Nayak along with driver of the car sustained injuries and later succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The legal heirs of Mathurananda Nayak and Jita Naik filed two separate claim applications before the Tribunal. By a common Award the Tribunal allowed the applications. For the death of Mathurananda Naik the Tribunal awarded a total sum of ₹4,36,95,740/- to the claimants and for the death of Jita Naik awarded a sum of ₹1,29,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The Insurance Company challenged the award before the High Court and the claimants also challenged the award before the High Court for enhancement of compensation amount awarded to them by the Tribunal. By impugned common judgment, the High Court reduced the compensation to ₹3,75,00,000/-. Challenging the said judgment of the High Court, the Insurance Company has filed C.A. No. 3862 of 2013 seeking further reduction in the award of compensation whereas the claimants have filed C.A. Nos. 3863-3864 of 2013 seeking enhancement in the compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the application. The Apex Court held that having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) and on perusal of the entire record of the case, we have formed an opinion to dismiss both the appeals and, in consequence, are inclined to uphold the order of the High Court which, in our view, does not call for any interference. On perusal of the decisions cited at the bar and further having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the concurrent findings of two courts and on material issues such as the determination of annual income of the deceased, his age, the number of dependents etc., we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. In our view, such findings, apart from being concurrent, cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary and nor they result in awarding a bonanza or a windfall to the claimants so as to call for further reduction in the compensation awarded by the High Court. In other words, in our view, what has been eventually awarded to the claimants by the High Court appears to be just and reasonable compensation within the meaning of Section 166 of the Act and there does not appear any good ground for further enhancement under any of the heads including under the head of future prospects as claimed by the claimants in their appeal and nor any case is made out for further reduction by applying the lesser multiplier or to make further deduction in the salary component of the deceased as claimed by the Insurance Company. When we find that under one head, reasonable amount has been awarded and under another head, nothing has been awarded though it should have been so awarded and at the same time, we notice that eventual figure of the award of compensation payable to the claimants appears to be just and reasonable then in such eventuality, we do not consider it proper to interfere in such award in our appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. In other words, if by applying the tests and guidelines, we find that overall award of compensation is just and fair, then, in our view, such award deserves to be upheld in claimants' favour. We find it to be so in the facts of this case having taken note of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeals, i.e., the appeal filed by the Insurance Company seeking further reduction in the compensation and the appeals filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in the compensation and accordingly dismiss the appeals and, in consequence, uphold the order of the High Court calling no interference therein. In view of the above decided case, the appeal may not be admissible.