Five, claimants cannot avail the obvious benefit of filing claims in Indian courts of law or courts in the countries of their residence. This is the all-important user-friendly mandate of Montreal ‘99 which makes it easier to file and pursue claims. The benefit is not available under the present regime.

Finally, it is imperative for relevant players to understand that Montreal ‘99 does not establish a skewered platform for international civil aviation in place of the old 1929 Warsaw system that was definitely protective of the nascent aviation industry to the detriment of passenger rights. In fact, the 1999 Convention corrects that imbalance. It is not an either/or platform. Eighty years on, international civil aviation has come of age and Montreal ‘99 is vital for its future growth.

Perhaps the most important benefits that accrue to a ratifying state come from Articles 21 and 37. Article 21(2) b protects a carrier against third party claims when damage caused is solely due to the negligence/ wrongful act or omission of a third party. This means that a carrier is not liable for wrongful and illegal acts by third parties that result in death/injury to passengers.

Furthermore, Article 37 gives the Right of Recourse against Third Parties. It is important to correctly recognise the potential of this right, particularly since Montreal ‘99 has been ratified by the US. When harmonised in domestic law, it will empower a government to file claims for compensation against third parties, including foreign states, in their courts of law. Inevitably hijacking and terrorist attacks on board aircrafts come to mind. The memory of IC 184 is still fresh.

... contd.