Per Justice (Retd.) G.D. Sharma 1. This case represents a sad spectacle as the complainants lost their parents at the tender age of 14 years, leaving them to be reared and look after by sole surviving member in the family namely, grand mother who herself was in her advance old age and suffering from various ailments. The deceased were in the prime of their youth and were on a holy trip to cover the pilgrimage of Baba Amar Nath shrine located in high Himalayas of Kashmir valley of the State of J&K. At the time of ill-fated accident, they were on their return journey, undertaken from Srinagar upto the holy cave in Helicopter Bell 407 VT-FJK, which crashed in the surrounding hilly area of the town of Ganderbal. The complainants are twin born brothers from the wedlock of deceased Shri Vineet Kedia and late Shrimati Ritika Kedia. The incident took place on 05.08.2003. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in a high level meeting held under the chairmanship of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of J&K on 22nd of July 2003, it was decided that in order to promote tourism in the State of J&K, the State owned aircraft and helicopter be made available to the tourists including the pilgrims of Baba Amar Nath. The Civil Aviation Ministry in the Government of India had consented that the State of J&K was at liberty to utilize its own helicopters/aircrafts for promoting tourism within its territorial limits. The minutes of said meeting recorded under head 3 recites that "helicopters should be utilized for on going Amarnath yatra particularly for airlifting the sick, old and infirm to facilitate their pilgrimage at reasonable cost." Para 4 of the minutes of the meeting reads that operation of flights had to be carried out on no profit no loss basis as it was intended to be of promotional measure. The air fare of Helicopter service from Srinagar upto the holy cave of Amarnathji and back upto the taking off point it Srinagar was fixed at Rs. 50,000/-. The meeting was also attended by the then Civil Aviation Commissioner namely, deceased late Shri J.S. Kehlon alongwith other concerned Government officials. Deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon implemented the decision of the meeting by appointing OP no. 2 as booking agent of the air tickets of pilgrims of Baba Amar Nath on behalf of OP no. 1. 50,000/-. The meeting was also attended by the then Civil Aviation Commissioner namely, deceased late Shri J.S. Kehlon alongwith other concerned Government officials. Deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon implemented the decision of the meeting by appointing OP no. 2 as booking agent of the air tickets of pilgrims of Baba Amar Nath on behalf of OP no. 1. Thereafter, OP no. 2 for running his agency in an extended manner appointed OP no. 3 as its sub-agent on commission basis. The parents of complainants (late Shri Vineet Kedia and late Shrimati Ritika Kedia) were Contacted by OP no. 3 to avail the services of pilgrimage through package tour at an agreed fare from Inter Continental Hotel Grand Palace (hereinafter to be referred to as Hotel) to the holy cave and back with facilities of providing free transportation from airport Srinagar to Hotel with break fast facility and two nights accommodation for 3rd and 4th of August 2003. A party of 30 passengers including the deceased was booked by OP no. 3 from their business premises at Delhi at confessional rate of fare of Rs. 23,500/- per passenger. OP no. 3 charged 10% of the fixed air fare on spot in Delhi while-as the balance amount of the fare was made payable by every pilgrim passenger of that party to OP No. 2 in the premises of the Hotel in Srinagar. OP no. 2 accordingly confirmed the booking of Helicopter tour package for all the members of that tour party including the deceased. OP no. 2 namely, Captain Murti after receiving the balance amount of the air fare in the premises of the Hotel on 5.8.2003 facilitated the boarding of the deceased alongwith other three pilgrims of the tour party in Bell 407 Helicopter which was in the operational charge of deceased Captain, J.S. Kalhon. The Helicopter took off its flight at 5.45 a.m (before sun rise) from Nehru Helipad in the presence of Captain Murti (OP no. 2). The passengers had a safe on-going journey upto the holy cave where after disembarking they had the "Darshans" of the holy deities inside the cave but on their return journey, the Helicopter crashed after being hit with the top portion of some Deodar trees on a hill nearby the surrounding area of Ganderbal town. 2). The passengers had a safe on-going journey upto the holy cave where after disembarking they had the "Darshans" of the holy deities inside the cave but on their return journey, the Helicopter crashed after being hit with the top portion of some Deodar trees on a hill nearby the surrounding area of Ganderbal town. Only one passenger could survive after suffering multiple injuries whereas, the remaining four passengers as well as pilot Captain J.S. Kehlon died on the spot. The incident was investigated by DGCA and the complainants in their amended complaint have enumerated the following acts of omissions & commissions, which caused the crash of the Helicopter alongwith other three passengers of the tour package. The flight took off from Nehru helipad at 5:45 a.m (before sun rise) in the presence of Captain Murti who represents OP no. 2 and while on their return journey met with a fatal accident in which only one of the passengers survived with multiple injuries. Captain J.S. Kehlon also died in the accident. The complainants have attributed following facts and omissions and negligence on the part of the OPs, which contributed for the cause of the accident. i) The helicopter fly from Srinagar to the holy cave of Amarnath and back Carrying fare paying passengers of the aforesaid package tour was non/scheduled passenger flight, which required non-scheduled operators permit (NSOP) from DGCA Government of India but investigation conducted after the accident states that before the approval of NSOP, OPs no. 1, 2, 3 and 9 had started operation. ii) Mr. J.S. Kehlon, who was employed as pilot to fly helicopter in question for commercial purposes was aged 59 years and he was flying the helicopter solely without the help of a co-pilot and thus violating the relevant law and rules of navigation. iii) The pilot was not instrument rated which means not qualified to fly the helicopter for commercial purposes and the helicopter was not equipped to be flown in instrument meteorological conditions. iv) There was poor visibility and bad weather when flight took off but that factor was ignored v) That Air Traffic Control at Srinagar Airport which is under the control of OP no. iv) There was poor visibility and bad weather when flight took off but that factor was ignored v) That Air Traffic Control at Srinagar Airport which is under the control of OP no. 7 permitted the ill fated helicopter to fly for commercial purposes from Srinagar airport in violation of the Visual Flight Rules, as they required that helicopter should fly after sun rise and the visibility should be 5 Kms but the flight was allowed to take off half an hour before sun rise in a very poor visibility conditions. vi) The greed to earn money had swayed over the deceased J.S. Kehlon who in connivance with OP no. 2 had succeeded in increasing the occupational capacity of the helicopter and had increased the frequency of flights to exhaust the whole list of thirty passengers. vii) No proper log book/record was maintained much less dispatched to OP no. 5. OPs no. 1 and 5 were negligent not to care for this lapse. OPs no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 have deliberately and intentionally allowed the infringement of the Aviation Rules by allowing OPs 1, 2 and 3 to play with the precious lives of the passengers. It is alleged that deceased Shrimati Ritika Kedia was of 37 years of age at the time of accident. She was holding a degree of B.Com (Hons.) Gemologist and trained in financial and tax management. She had widely travelled abroad. She had a charming personality. She was beautiful, soft-spoken, full of etiquette and manners. As per the family history she could have lived a longer life as her grandfather had died at the age of 80 years and grandmother at the age of 90 years. Her father is alive at the age of 70 years and mother at the age of 65 years. The record of annual income tax returns for preceding three financial years have been attached at page no. 139 of the Paper Book. Financial year Assessment year Returned Income (Rs.) 1999-2000 2000-01 1,12,100.00 2000-01 2001-02 1,02,020.00 2001-02 2002-03 1,02,000.00 Her average income with increase in earning income and experience has been assessed at Rs. 15 lac per annum. Similarly, her husband's income tax return for proceedings three financial years have been placed on record at page no. 139 of the Paper Book. Financial year Assessment year Returned Income (Rs.) 1999-2000 2000-01 1,12,100.00 2000-01 2001-02 1,02,020.00 2001-02 2002-03 1,02,000.00 Her average income with increase in earning income and experience has been assessed at Rs. 15 lac per annum. Similarly, her husband's income tax return for proceedings three financial years have been placed on record at page no. 133 Financial year Assessment year Returned Income (Rs.) 1999-2000 2000-01 1,72,060.00 2000-01 2001-02 2,17,870.00 2001-02 2002-03 17,22,830.00 The average income of late Shri Vineet Kedia has been shown at Rs. 50 lac with life expectancy of 40 years. 3. The following reliefs have been claimed:- Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs. 30 Crores alongwith costs. 4. OPs no. 1, 8 and 9 in their written version have raised the preliminary objection that the complaint is time barred being violative of Rule 30 of The Air Craft Act 1972 as well as Section 24-A of The J&K Consumer Protection Act. On facts, it is pleaded that there was no agreement with OPs 2 and 3 that the State Government would receive the fare from the passengers being used for commercial purposes. It is denied that the flight in question was operated against non-scheduled operators permit (NSOP). The helicopter alongwith the passengers was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ltd. The existence of any record showing the booking of the flight in question by any tour agency is denied. The helicopter in question was not used for hire and reward as per records available with the OPs. The Pilot was duly licensed as he could fly the aircraft up to the age of 60 years. The deceased captain was having unblemished record of flying. That all the Rules and Guidelines laid down by DGCA were observed and entries in the logbook were also made. The inquiry conducted by any Commission is not admissible in these proceedings. In para no. 21, it is admitted that the case for grant of non-scheduled operators permit (passengers) to the State helicopter had been taken up and was in advance Stage of procurement from DGCA New Delhi. Pilots personal flying logbook as well as helicopter's logbook were correctly maintained which were furnished to the inspecting team of DGCA. OP no. In para no. 21, it is admitted that the case for grant of non-scheduled operators permit (passengers) to the State helicopter had been taken up and was in advance Stage of procurement from DGCA New Delhi. Pilots personal flying logbook as well as helicopter's logbook were correctly maintained which were furnished to the inspecting team of DGCA. OP no. 3 in his written version has taken preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is time barred as it was filed in the month of October 2005 and that it is not maintainable because complainants had already filed a complaint in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi as well as Civil Suit before the learned District Judge, Srinagar. The Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. That the guardian of the complainants namely, Prabha Kedia had died in the year 2006. On facts, it is pleaded that the accident took place because of wrath of nature and was not a result of any contributory negligence. OP no. 3 was only a booking agent acting on behalf of OP no. 2 and had no connection with the accident. That OP no. 2 had agreed to fix fare of per passenger in the helicopter flight at the rate of Rs. 23,500/- and OP no. 3 had received advance amount of booking fare to the tune of Rs.70,500/- for providing air flight service of a party of 30 persons and the balance amount thereof to the tune of Rs. 6,34,500/- was payable to OP no. 2 at Srinagar and infact that amount was paid. OP no. 3 had no privity of contract with OP no. l for using the helicopter. It is admitted that helicopter in question was being operated by OPs no. l and 2 jointly and OP no. 3 was acting as booking agent on behalf of OP no. 2 at Delhi on commission basis for the package tour being offered by OP no. 2 to its clients. It is also admitted that OP no. l was using helicopter for commercial purposes jointly with OP no. 2 by offering the services to the pilgrimages for going to Shrine of Amarnathji. OP no. 2 was managing the whole show, as it was he who was supervising the departure and arrival of flights from Srinagar by ill-fated helicopter. It is also admitted that OP no. l was using helicopter for commercial purposes jointly with OP no. 2 by offering the services to the pilgrimages for going to Shrine of Amarnathji. OP no. 2 was managing the whole show, as it was he who was supervising the departure and arrival of flights from Srinagar by ill-fated helicopter. That 10% of the booking fare amount was charged by him from a passenger and 90% was charged by OP no. 2 at Srinagar. OPs no. 4 to 6 in their written version have raised objection that Bell 407 Helicopter VT-FJK was owned and operated by Government of J&K. On the fateful day i.e. on 05.08.2003, the onward flight to Amarnath was uneventful. While returning from Amarnath cave when the helicopter was passing the Gund Valley area to proceed to Srinagar, it was flown over a hillock and became uncontrollable after colliding with Deodar trees and crashed. Immediately, thereafter, DGCA ordered the investigation of the accident by inspector of accidents under Rule 71 of Aircrafts Rules 1937. The report was examined by DGCA and forwarded to Ministry of Defence and thereafter; it has become a public document. The complainants have not furnished any record with the complaint to prove deliberate and intentional negligence on the parts of Ops. It is admitted that on the date of accident OP no. l was not having non-scheduled operators permit. It is not possible for the DGCA to monitor day-to-day activities of the operators and its personnel. However, safety audit, spot check, surveillances inspections etc. are carried out from time to time in order to ascertain the adherence with the Regulatory instructions. As and when any violation/discrepancy in following of the stipulated Rules/Regulations comes to the notice of DGCA, immediate action is taken to rectify the same. No violation of such nature was reported or came to the knowledge of the DFGCA prior to the accident. It is only during the investigation of the accident that the violation was observed. He examined the investigation report of inspector of accidents. There was no delay in handing over a copy of that report to the complainants. The Government had accepted the investigation report of the inspector of accidents. The logbooks of the aircraft are verified at the time of the renewal of certificate of Airworthiness. Logbooks of Crew are checked during the renewal of their license. There was no delay in handing over a copy of that report to the complainants. The Government had accepted the investigation report of the inspector of accidents. The logbooks of the aircraft are verified at the time of the renewal of certificate of Airworthiness. Logbooks of Crew are checked during the renewal of their license. Neither DGCA nor Ministry of Civil Aviation is liable regarding compensation/damages. OP no. 7 in his preliminary objections has denied its liability on the pleas that ATC, Srinagar had not given clearance to the helicopter in question to take off from Srinagar helipad on 05.08.2003 but from Nehru helipad, which is on bearing of 045 degree and 7 Kms away from Srinagar Aerodrome. It is admitted that flight was taken without obtaining any ATS briefing or ATC clearance. Op no. 7 is not responsible for any violation of safety measures. Srinagar ATC maintains watch hours from sunrise to sun set. After obtaining permission from the Commission, OP no. 8 has filed separate written version and taken the pleas that it is a company registered under The Companies Act and being a corporation, it is not a department of Government of Jammu and Kashmir but has a separate legal entity quite distinct from State of Jammu and Kashmir. It has its own separate independent character and is governed by its own Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association and has nothing to do with the activities carried by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. It has nothing to do with helicopter services referred in the complaint as it was not associated with services nor is even aware about the accident. They have denied all the allegations. According to them, OP no. 8 has unnecessarily been arrayed as party and requires its deletion. OPs no. 10 and 11 raised the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint on the pleas that the claim was raised with it after twelve months from the happening of the loss, which is a violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of Insurance and that they also got the knowledge about the filing of the complaint after six years and as such the complaint becomes time barred under J&K Consumer Protection Act, which provides limitation of two years. It is also pleaded by them that under the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance, they were liable to indemnify insured OP no. 1 in case the insured aircraft was not plied for commercial purposes but in the instant case, the aircraft was flown for commercial purposes as from the inquiry conducted by the orders of DGCA, it was found that the passengers who had their booking from Delhi and were allowed to board the aircraft in question were neither Government Officials nor Government Guests. The aircraft was being used for hire and reward purposes so the liability to indemnify OPs 1 and 9 by the insurers OPs 10 and 11 was absolved. The complainants namely, Master Shashwat Kedia and Master Anirudh Kedia in their affidavits have supported the allegations made in the complaint. Both of them have stated that deceased pilot, captain, J.S. Kehlon before the accident had flown the helicopter for 36 consecutive days prior to the date of the accident. OP no. 1 (State of Jammu and Kashmir) had failed in its duty of supervisions and control to prevent captain Kehlon for the blatant violations of the Air Traffic Rules. Aviations norms require a co-pilot to be engaged in the venture but there was no co-pilot engaged. Neither the pilot instrument rated nor helicopter was equipped to be flown in instrument meteorological conditions, which were encountered during the ill-fated flight. No log book/record were maintained by OP No. 1 and OP No. 5. That due to untimely death of their father they have been deprived of an amount of Rs. 17.00 Crores and due to the untimely death of their mother they have lost 6.00 Crores because both of them upto the age of 70 years would have earned that much amount They have claimed non-pecuniary damages to the tune of Rs. 8.00 Crores. It is also stated that the helicopter was not licensed for commercial operations. They could not present themselves for cross-examination on the plea that when the accident took place on 05.03.2003 they were minors. They are twin born brothers and their date of birth is 05.12.1990. That from the very beginning their maternal grand father, namely Mr. Raj Kumar Jajodia has been pursuing the case. They could not present themselves for cross-examination on the plea that when the accident took place on 05.03.2003 they were minors. They are twin born brothers and their date of birth is 05.12.1990. That from the very beginning their maternal grand father, namely Mr. Raj Kumar Jajodia has been pursuing the case. Their maternal grand mother, Smt. Prabha Kedia was alive at that time of accident but was not keeping good health and died during the pendency of the proceedings. They are pursuing their studies abroad and for the purposes of their cross-examination gave power of attorney to their maternal grand father, Mr. Raj Kumar Jajodia (duly attested power of attorney attached with the record). Mr. Raj Kumar Jajodia deposed on affidavit and corroborated the allegations made in the complaint. He has also enumerated the violations committed by Mr. J.S. Kehlon while fling the helicopter not only for the flight in question but also for the whole period of the yatra period of the holy shrine. He has specifically stated that OP No. 7 who had air traffic control of Srinagar Airport had permitted ill-fated civilian helicopter in question to fly on 5.8.2003 in violation of Visual Flight Rules. The Visual Flight Rules require that helicopter should fly after sun rise and the visibility should be 5 Km. But on the ill-fated day i.e. on 05.08.2003 the ill-fated helicopter took off at Nehru Helipad half and hour before sun rise when the visibility was very poor. Deceased pilot, Captain, J.S. Kehlon had not taken mandated rest and he was allowed to take flights on the 7th day as well as in violation of regulations. In other words, he was allowed to take more flights than he could handle. Deceased, Vineet Kedia was his son-in-law and at the time of his death his age was 41 years old, while-as, his daughter deceased, Ritika was 37 years old. Both of them were ambitious businessman/woman. Ritika was engaged in finance, investments, real estate and share business where she was doing very well. He has also stated that the complainants have been deprived of an amount of Rs. 17.00 Crores for the death of his son-in-law and Rs. 6.00 Crores for the death of his daughter, Ritika Kedia. Non-pecuniary damages have been claimed to the tune of Rs. 8.00 Crores. Both of them were income tax payees. He has also stated that the complainants have been deprived of an amount of Rs. 17.00 Crores for the death of his son-in-law and Rs. 6.00 Crores for the death of his daughter, Ritika Kedia. Non-pecuniary damages have been claimed to the tune of Rs. 8.00 Crores. Both of them were income tax payees. He produced the record of income tax returns and the assessments made thereon by the Income Tax Department. In cross examination he stated that his son in law and daughter have set out for pilgrimage from Delhi and they had purchased tickets from OP No. 3 in consideration of Rs. 23,500/- per passenger. There was a group of 30 persons and it was a case of package tour. They had boarded the aircraft as passengers and not as VIPs or State guests. In his cross examination conducted by the counsel of OP No. l and OP No. 9 stated that Smt. Prabha Kedia (grand mother of the complainants) who was the natural guardian of the minor complainants had in her life-time given the power of attorney in his favour to conduct the case on her behalf as well as on behalf of the complainants. His son-in-law was doing the business of purchasing sick industries and then after reviving them he would sell them in the open market and in this way was doing good market business. His daughter Ritika had passed B.Com. (Hons.) and was Gemnologist. She was purchasing the gems including jewellery and selling to her clients. She was also doing the business of real estate as well as sale and purchase of shares. Her age at the time of death was 37 years and the age of his son-in-law was 41 years. After their death the complainants have emotionally and financially suffered because of loss of parental love and affection. He was also cross examined by the counsel of OPs no. 4 to 7 and stated that from the report of DGCA which was filed after detailed survey and visiting the spot, it was revealed that there was negligence on the part of OP No. l as well as on the part of Captain, pilot, J.S. Kehlon. The government had not obtained the required permit from DGCA. In his cross-examination, conducted by the counsel of OP No. 3 he stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the crash. The government had not obtained the required permit from DGCA. In his cross-examination, conducted by the counsel of OP No. 3 he stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the crash. He also produced a copy of letter (annexure `A') dated 23.10.2009 written to him by Mr. A.K. Chopra, Joint Director General of Civil Aviation for Director General of Civil Aviation and informed that the accident was investigated under Rule 71 of Aircraft Rules 1937 and the report of the accident had been accepted by DGCA and Ministry of Civil Aviation Government of India. Once the accident report/portion of the report is accepted by the Government of India, it becomes of binding nature and the recommendations of the report are to be followed by all concerned. There is another letter written by said Mr. A.K. Chopra (annexure `A1') to Mr. Raj Kumar Jajodia, wherein it is reiterated that inquiry report in the said accident had been completed and report accepted by the Government of India. The complainants have produced Mr. Anil Gaur and have also produced the evidence of Vivek Gadkari, Suresh Poddar, Dinesh Gupta and Ganesh Gupta. Mr. Anil Gaur is a chartered Accountant by profession and has deposed on affidavit that he was looking after all income tax matters of late Vineet Kedia and his wife late late Ritika Kedia. He was also acting as chartered Accountant for his proprietor-ship Firm of M/S Kedia Steels. He had found late Mr. Vineet Kedia a great visionary and had a good judgment power in business dealings, which he detected during the course of his association with him. Mr. Vineet Kedia and his wife Ritika Kedia were law-abiding citizens and were paying income tax to the income tax department. There was spiraling growth in their business activities and he disclosed from the record profitability of late Vineet Kedia, which is reproduced below:- Assessment year Gross total income Taxable income Income tax paid 2000-01 1,88,500/- 1,72,060/- 26,736/- 2001-02 2,29,866/- 2,17,866/- 44,516/- 2002-03 20,59,953/- 17,22,830/- 4,90,076/- According to him, the total income for the assessment year 2002-03 was about nine times from that of early years. He has also given the details of the income tax of late Ritika Kedia, which are reproduced below:- Assessment year Gross total income Taxable income Income tax paid 2000-01 1,12,178/- 1,12,178/- 12,560/- 2001-02 1,03,126/- 1,02,020/- 10,533/- 2002-03 1,03,311/- 1,02,883/- 9,576/- As a professional accountant, he was confident that had two lived for many more years, they jointly/severally would have been much richer and would have soon be reckoned with affluent society of India. He was cross-examined by the counsel of the OP no. 3 and stated that he had no knowledge about the crash of aircraft. In his cross-examination conducted by counsel of OPs no. 1and 9 stated that he has no knowledge about the rout of the planned tour. In his cross-examination conducted by the counsel of OPs no. 10 and 11stated that he had been giving the service of professional consultancy to the deceased's Firm for the last eight years. The deceased was assessed after making of deduction of 30% from his gross income towards income tax. The second limb of his argument is that there is no evidence on the record to prove that there was any relationship of any consumer and service provider of OP no. 2 with OP no. 9 as no amount of any fare of this case was ever received by OP no. 1 in the records and also there is no evidence led by the complainants that the amount had been received by OP no. 1. Furthermore, the star witness of the accident was the sole surviving one of the boarded passengers but the complainants have failed to bring him in the witness box and thus the cause of the accident remains shrouded in mystery. The complainants so far had put up their case that the airfare of the deceased was received by OP no. 2 but they have failed to prove that it was received by OP no. 1. There was no agreement between OP no. 1 and OP no. 9 with OP no. 2. There is no evidence on record that the deceased had paid the airfare to Ops 1 and 9. The copy of the policy decision referred in the arguments under the chairmanship of the then Chief Minister on 22.07.2003 related only to the use of Fixed Wing Plane Aircrafts and was not related to the helicopter in question. 2. There is no evidence on record that the deceased had paid the airfare to Ops 1 and 9. The copy of the policy decision referred in the arguments under the chairmanship of the then Chief Minister on 22.07.2003 related only to the use of Fixed Wing Plane Aircrafts and was not related to the helicopter in question. The complainants are heavily relying upon the inquiry report conducted by DGCA, which is only of recommendatory nature under the Commission of Enquiries Act 1952 and cannot be taken into evidence. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has cited the case of Indian Airlines Corporation versus Madhuri Chowdhuri and Ors. [AIR 1965 Calcutta 252] (V 25 C 49). Mr. J.S. Kehlon deceased pilot of ill-fated helicopter was an experienced pilot having valid flying license and had unblemished flying record. The cause of accident was sudden deterioration in the weather conditions, which could not be surmised by human judgment. The Complainants have also failed to produce any other witness from the list of 30 package tour passengers when they were easily available because they were alive. Wing Commander Virender Gupta who has appeared witness on behalf of OP no. 3 has failed to prove that he had received any commission from OPs 1 and 9 but has categorically stated that commission @ 3% from the airfare was received by him from OP no. 2. The complainants evidence revolves round the point that ill-fated flight was taken on that day and no evidence is to the fact that any other flight was taken during the pilgrimage period of the yatra. Also, there is no evidence on the record that OP no. 2 is an authorized agent of OP no. 1. It could be a possibility that the deceased might have been taken as guests in the ill-fated helicopter and not as passengers. With regard to the relief regarding to the compensation put up by the complainant, the learned counsel has replied that the complainants have placed on record the income tax returns of the preceding three years and brought in the witness box their Chartered Accountant Mr. Anil Gaur and Manager of their business concern Mr. Vivek Gadkari which evidence is not of credulous nature. Anil Gaur and Manager of their business concern Mr. Vivek Gadkari which evidence is not of credulous nature. The liability of the lives of the deceased travellers in the ill-fated aircraft either in the capacity of passengers or VVIP's was covered under valid Insurance Policy which is an illegal manner have been repudiated by OPs 10 and 11 and the matter has been referred to the concerned quarters for taking proper action. The claim was rejected because the aircraft was allegedly used for commercial purposes when the fact of the matter was that it was never used in that capacity. 5. Mr. M.M. Amin, the learned counsel for OP no. 2 has argued that Op no. 2 falls in the category of trade for providing facility of tourism in view of the decision taken by the Government on 22.07.2003 for the promotion of tourism only by the name of AIR SAFARI SCHEME. OP no. 2 was not an authorized agent of OPs 1 and 9 to provide his service as a booking agent but was a customer under the J&K Tourism Act by making the payments, which was being received from the Customers and making the payment by Bank Drafts to OPs 1 and 9. The counsel has admitted in the open court that the fare, which OP no. 2 had received from the deceased passengers including the other passengers of the travel package tour group, was made over to OPs no. 1 and 9. On these facts and circumstances, OP no. 2 was only a customer of OPs 1 and 9. He admits that annexure P1, which has been produced by OP no. 3, is the correct version and that forms the part of record also. The names of the deceased are figuring at item nos. 11 and 12. OP no. 2 had no contract with the complainants to provide air travel service in the ill-fated helicopter but had arranged their journey and if there was any fault rendering service, OP no. 2 is not liable for the same. 6. Mr. Asif Majeed, the counsel for OP no. 3 has filed the written arguments, copies whereof have been given to the counsel of the complainants. The learned counsel has further contended that they received the commission of 3% from OP no. 2 for making the tour operative and had nothing to do with any deficiency in service. 7. Mr. 6. Mr. Asif Majeed, the counsel for OP no. 3 has filed the written arguments, copies whereof have been given to the counsel of the complainants. The learned counsel has further contended that they received the commission of 3% from OP no. 2 for making the tour operative and had nothing to do with any deficiency in service. 7. Mr. T.A. Malik, the learned counsel appearing for OPs 10 and 11 has contended that they are not a party to the alleged deficient service rendered by the Ops because their Insurance Contract was only with OP no. 1 to carry passengers other than for commercial purposes. Since, the deceased had travelled by making the payment of airfare so their journey was not covered under the terms and conditions of the contract of Insurance. The cause of action had arisen on 05.08.2003 and complaint should have been filed within two years but they were impleaded as parties after 6 years as they got the knowledge after receiving the notice on 12.09.2009. Under Section 24(A), the complaint is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has cited the cases of Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. versus National Insurance Co. and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 4962 of 2002 Decided on 10.07.2009) and that of Vikram Greentech Ltd. And Anr. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Since, complaint was not accompanied by any application to condone the delay, therefore in view of the law laid down in the above stated cases, the complaint is not maintainable. OPs have taken specific plea in para 3 of the written version that in terms of the terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance, the use of the aircraft by hire and reward, Industrial uses or taxi operator was excluded and when the claim was raised by OP no. 1 with OPs, they validly repudiated the Insurance Policy. Premium received in this case was for risk only and not for carrying passengers. 8. We have heard the arguments of the counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record carefully. The enactment of Consumer Protection Act has its genesis in the Resolution dated 09.04.1985 of General Assembly of United Nation Organization. This is known as "Consumer Protection Resolution No. 39/248. 8. We have heard the arguments of the counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record carefully. The enactment of Consumer Protection Act has its genesis in the Resolution dated 09.04.1985 of General Assembly of United Nation Organization. This is known as "Consumer Protection Resolution No. 39/248. The J&K Consumer Protection Act of 1987 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act) seeks to provide for better protection of the interest of the Consumers and for the said purpose, to make provision for the establishments of consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlements of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith. It further seeks inter alia to promote and protect the rights of the consumers such as:- The right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers etc. The Act provides for, "business to consumer" disputes and not for, "business to business" disputes. The raison d' etre of the present case is allegations of the helpless orphan complainants against carrying the unfair trade by the Government Officials by their mala fide as well as indolent behaviour. In other words, the acts of malfeasance or misfeasance constitute the fulcrum of the present complaint upon which the controversy hinges. The prime perpetrators of the alleged actions are alleged to be OPs 1, 2, 7 and 9. In the famous case of Lucknow Development Authority versus M.K. Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787 , it has been held that, "primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of Consumer Act is to adopt a constructive approach so that maximum benefit becomes available to the consumers. The approach should be beneficial to the consumer." Lord Acton's hackneyed phrase, "Power corrupts absolutely" has also bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case, which would surface after the appraisal of the evidence led by the parties. The whole gamut of the case has already been extensively delineated in the pleadings and arguments advanced in their behalf, which require no repetition, as that would make this judgment lengthy and cumbersome. From the factual matrix of the case, it is an admitted fact that Bell 407 helicopter was owned by OP no. The whole gamut of the case has already been extensively delineated in the pleadings and arguments advanced in their behalf, which require no repetition, as that would make this judgment lengthy and cumbersome. From the factual matrix of the case, it is an admitted fact that Bell 407 helicopter was owned by OP no. 1 and on the fateful day of the unfortunate accident, which occurred on 05.08.2003, deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon was in operational charge of the helicopter when he had taken it off for the flight at 5:45 a.m (before sunrise) from Nehru Helipad Srinagar and had caused its crash on the return journey from the holy cave with five passengers boarded therein excluding himself. There was no co-pilot in the helicopter. Only one passenger survived the tragedy with multiple injuries and must be suffering permanent disabilities and deformities. Neither he nor the heirs of other two deceased passengers have raised their claim in this Commission. The amended complaint was accepted in the commission after the attorney holder of the complainants could lay his hands on the Inquiry reported conducted by the DGCA and the acts of commissions and omissions for not observing the laid down Air Flight Rules have been enumerated. Mr. Zubair, advocate appearing for OPs 1 and 9 had filed the written version even on behalf of OP no. 8 and the record reveals that he was not specifically authorized to do so. In order to shorten the controversy separate written version was later on taken on record, on behalf of OP no. 8. OPs no. 1 and 9 in their written version have denied that there was any agreement with OPs 2 and 3 that helicopter in question be allowed to be used for commercial purposes and the fare for the air travel of helicopter in question collected from the passengers would be received. However, after the production of the suppressed official record by the contending parties, the defence taken has fallen like a house of cards. OPs no. 1 and 9 had admitted that the case for the grant of Non Scheduled Operators Permit (NSOP) to the State helicopter had been formally taken up with the authorities and it was in the advance stage of Procurement from DGCA New Delhi. OPs no. 1 and 9 had admitted that the case for the grant of Non Scheduled Operators Permit (NSOP) to the State helicopter had been formally taken up with the authorities and it was in the advance stage of Procurement from DGCA New Delhi. They have also admitted that Pilot's personal flying log-book as well as helicopter's log-book were correctly maintained but they were furnished to the inspecting team of DGCA. OP no. 2's conduct from the very beginning has been of very doubtful nature as he has always tried to play a game of hide and seek. He had chosen not to file the written version but was watching the proceedings from behind the scene; though he had hired the services of Mr. M.M. Amin, advocate. He too was appearing and dis-appearing in the proceedings at his sweet will without rendering any professional services to the commission to find out the truth. His contribution is only to the extent that when the arguments were being heard, he made an application of a highly fictitious and vexatious nature, which was disposed of after hearing the arguments on 13.09.2011 by a detailed order. When his attempt to protract the proceedings failed, he advanced his arguments, which stand recorded. OP no. 3 who has proved his status as sub-agent of OP no. 2 by filing the written version and thereafter led the evidence of cogent nature in the form of documents and oral evidence of Mr. V.K. Gupta Wing Commander (Retd.), whereby it is proved beyond any doubt that the helicopter in question was operated by OPs 1 and 2 jointly and OP no. 3 was acting as a booking agent of OP no. 2 in his business premises in Delhi on Commission basis. From the evidence it is further proved that the deceased passengers were members of a tour group, consisting of other 28 passengers. OP no. 3 had received a part of the fare in the sum of Rs. 70,500/- from the tour group and the balance thereof at the rate of Rs. 23,500/- per passenger was received by OP no. 2 at Srinagar who was using helicopter for commercial purposes to provide service to the pilgrims for covering journey to the holy cave of Shri Amar Nath to and fro. Op no. 70,500/- from the tour group and the balance thereof at the rate of Rs. 23,500/- per passenger was received by OP no. 2 at Srinagar who was using helicopter for commercial purposes to provide service to the pilgrims for covering journey to the holy cave of Shri Amar Nath to and fro. Op no. 2 was supervising the departure and arrival of the air sorties from Srinagar Helipad and on the ill-fated day, he was also present at the helipad in the company of deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon. OPs 4 to 6 in their written version have admitted that on the date of accident OP no. 1 was not having Non Scheduled Operators Permit (NSOP). They have admitted that safety audit, spot check, surveillance inspection etc. are carried out by them from time to time in order to ascertain the adherence with the regulatory instructions. No violation of such nature was reported or came to the knowledge of DGCA prior to the accident. OP no. 7 has denied its liability on the plea that ATC Srinagar had given any clearance to the helicopter in question to take off from Srinagar Helipad on 05.08.2003 and the flight was taken without obtaining ATS briefing or ATC clearance. It is also stated that ATC maintained watch hours from sunrise to sunset. OPs 10 and 11 in their written version have stated that complaint filed against them suffers from the vice of being time barred by limitation. From the inquiry held by the DGCA, it is found that passengers who had booking from Delhi and were allowed to board aircraft in question, were neither Government Officials nor Government Guests and in this manner, the aircraft was being used for hire and reward and on that basis they had validly repudiated the insurance claim raised by OPs 1 and 9, as being violative to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The complainant's evidence has proved that OP no. 1 had failed in its duty to supervise and control deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon for blatant violation of the Air Traffic Rules. Mr. R.K. Jajodia, from the official record (which with ulterior motives had been concealed by OP no. 9 Mr. Surinder Katoch) has proved that the ill-fated helicopter took off from the Nehru helipad Srinagar half an hour before sunrise when the visibility was very poor but the incharge employee of OP no. Mr. R.K. Jajodia, from the official record (which with ulterior motives had been concealed by OP no. 9 Mr. Surinder Katoch) has proved that the ill-fated helicopter took off from the Nehru helipad Srinagar half an hour before sunrise when the visibility was very poor but the incharge employee of OP no. 7 had granted permission under ADCNO4-17 NC NO 39. OP no.9 (Surinder Katoch) in his evidence has passed on the buck for the use of helicopter in question for commercial purposes on the shoulders of OP no. 2 on the plea that there was no record available in order to throw light under what circumstances the flight was booked by any tour agency. He has deposed against the official meeting record, which was held under the chairmanship of Hon'ble Chief Minister that Amarnath Helicopter Service was not discussed in that meeting when the record of the meeting speaks contrary to that assertion. He had admitted his presence in the meeting held on 22.07.2003 by Hon'ble Chief Minister regarding permission of Tourism by Air Safari Service but had forgotten about the discussions and the decisions. He had even forgotten the fixation of air tariff from the passengers @ Rs. 50,000/- per sortie from Srinagar to the holy cave and back. He had no Knowledge about the inquiry being conducted by the then Divisional Commissioner Kashmir (Mr. Parvez Dewan) regarding the accident but admits the knowledge that he had read the inquiry report prepared by the DGCA. According to him pilot Reen had raised the insurance claim on behalf of OP no. 1 with OPs 10 and 11. When the insurance claim was repudiated, he did not approach any Competent Forum except had tried to elicit legal opinion from Law Department. He has denied the availability of any record with regard to journey log-book of the destroyed helicopter as the same was taken away by DGCA for holding inquiry. He admitted that he had not brought into the notice of Hon'ble Chief Minister Incharge of Civil Aviation Department about the carrying of unfair trade by J.S. Kehlon and OP no. 2 of misusing the State owned helicopter in question even when the his Accounts Officer had reported to him that no deposit of any airfare had been made into the Government Treasury. 2 of misusing the State owned helicopter in question even when the his Accounts Officer had reported to him that no deposit of any airfare had been made into the Government Treasury. He also admitted that the helicopter in question at the time of accident was not covered under any commercial permit and after taking over as Director Civil Aviation, he obtained the commercial permit (NSOP) from DGCA and ministry of Civil Aviation government of India. He has admitted that after the accident OP no. 1 was using the State owned helicopter on commercial basis from the year 2004 to provide the service to pilgrims of Baba Amar Nath. OP no. 8 (Managing Director Tourism Department) have been Providing air tickets to the passengers on the basis of fair fixed by them and that OP no. 9 was only receiving actual helicopter usage charges on hourly basis from OP no. 8 and depositing the same in the Government Treasury Srinagar. According to him, when he took over the charge of the office of deceased J.S. Kehlon, only the limited official record was available in the Department but failed to bring this fact into the notice of higher authorities. He has shown his ignorance about the annual audit report conducted for the year 2003. He had taken time from this Commission to produce official record regarding the journey of the passengers in the ill-fated helicopter Bell 407 but thereafter no record was produced. Mr. Surinder Katoch has with-held the official record with malafide intention when, being a public servant he was required to act within the limits of law but Mr. R.K. Jajodia with all his earnest efforts even at his advance age has succeeded to nullify his evidence by producing copies of the official record by invoking the benevolent provisions of the RTI Act with all alacrity. A wise sage has well said, "The mills of God grind slowly but surely." This miracle undoubtedly has happened in this case because when Mr. R.K. Jajodia applied before the present Commissioner to J&K Government , Civil Aviation Department who is the superior officer of OP no. 9, he wiped falling tears from the eyes of Mr. A wise sage has well said, "The mills of God grind slowly but surely." This miracle undoubtedly has happened in this case because when Mr. R.K. Jajodia applied before the present Commissioner to J&K Government , Civil Aviation Department who is the superior officer of OP no. 9, he wiped falling tears from the eyes of Mr. R.K. Jajodia and without allowing any grass to grow under his feet enabled the latter to secure copies of the official records mentioned hereinabove including copy of the inquiry report submitted to the government by the then Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir Division, Shri Parvez Dewan. The Production of this official record was a last straw on the back of the camel because the plea of ali bi taken by OP no. 9 in his written version and subsequently reiterated in evidence pales into insignificance. The official record has presumptive value of being true unless proved otherwise. Mr. Parvez Dewan had visited the site of the accident as well as conducted personal enquiries from the locals and armed forces personnel who had arrived at the site immediately after the incident. His findings are that deceased Group Captain Kehlon was getting only 5 to 6 hours rest at night and that he had not been resting his body adequately and inadequate rest interfered with his professional Judgment. He has also in a candid and fair manner admitted in his report that for providing service in the State owned helicopter to the private individuals he himself had started the practice during the winter session of the year 2002-03 of getting the airfare deposited through Bank Drafts and that practice must have been followed by the deceased Group captain, Kehlon who had been receiving bank drafts by way of airfare from the passengers. He has gone to the extent of saying that when he got into the house of the deceased, Group Captain, Kehlon and approached his wife, then all the Bank Drafts were recovered and thereafter he had made request to OP no. 9 (Mr. Surinder Katoch) that he may be provided the photo copies of those bank drafts rendered by 5 passengers of the ill-fated flight as they were needed in his enquiry report but the report is silent about their receipts. The only legal inference, which can be drawn, is that they had been withheld for ulterior motive. 9 (Mr. Surinder Katoch) that he may be provided the photo copies of those bank drafts rendered by 5 passengers of the ill-fated flight as they were needed in his enquiry report but the report is silent about their receipts. The only legal inference, which can be drawn, is that they had been withheld for ulterior motive. He has also un-earthed the falsehood of OP no. 9 to the effect that no record of logbook was available in the official record. The inquiry report revealed that DGCA had kept the photocopies of the record of the crashed Helicopter with OP no. 9. Being a straightforward honest Government servant , his Conscience had awakened like that of the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Civil Aviation, as he too had brought this fact to the notice of the Private Secretary of Civil Aviation Department. The investigation report prepared by Squadron leader, Kapil Mohan (retired) who was deputed by insurers namely, OP no. 10 and 11 reveals that deceased Mr. Vineet Kedia and Mrs. Vineet Kedia had died in the accident and they were listed in the Passenger Manifest on board alongwith other passengers. He has named all the passengers in his report. He has also given his opinion that deceased Captain, Kehlon was intentionally violating the laid down safety measures, standards and regulations and that at the time of the accident CRPF jawans had reported to him that the area of the accident at that time was covered by dense fog. Those CRPF jawans were very close to the site of the incident. He had seen the journey logbook of the ill-fated Helicopter and all the passengers were on board as yatris to holy cave of Baba Amar Nath Ji and were businessmen. They had paid fare of that flight. There were operational violations regarding the flying time, weather conditions and flying hours. Apart from that the helicopter in question was not having permit from DGCA to operate unscheduled helicopter operations, which means for commercial purposes. He also has falsified the assertion of OP no. 9 by stating that he had obtained copies of the helicopter logbook from OP no. 9, as they were with him. OP nos. 10 and 11 have validly repudiated the insurance claim of OP nos. 1 and 9 for the reasons assigned in the letter of repudiation. He also has falsified the assertion of OP no. 9 by stating that he had obtained copies of the helicopter logbook from OP no. 9, as they were with him. OP nos. 10 and 11 have validly repudiated the insurance claim of OP nos. 1 and 9 for the reasons assigned in the letter of repudiation. The Insurance Claim form produced before OPs 10 and 11 on behalf of OP no. 1 was a document of anti litem motam nature as stood submitted before OPs no. 10 and 11 on 18.09.2003 and the complaint was later on filed in the Commission on 04.08.2005. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Versus Shri Radha Krishan Singh ( AIR 1983 SC 684 ) apply to the facts of the present case because in the declarations or statements made as anti litem motam, the element of bias and concoction is eliminated. The statements made in the above said Insurance Claim Form detailed hereinabove in the arguments were made before commencement of the legal proceedings. In those statements it is admitted that the helicopter in question was being used at the time of the accident to ferry passengers and that the name of the insurer was the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Civil Aviation Department. Not only that, Mr. R.K. Jajodia has also with all efforts procured the copy of the report of DGCA, which undoubtedly had been accepted by the Govt. of India and attained the finality. No follow-up action was taken on that report. OP no. 9 in his statement has admitted that he had read the report and it is for him to explain why he did not take any follow-up action on that report. It is well said that a man can tell lie but not a document. The truth adheres but the falsehood falls apart. At the appropriate time truth rises up from the grave and in the case in hand, the fair conduct of two high ranking government officials in the State hierarchy i.e. present Commissioner, Civil Aviation to government of Jammu and Kashmir and Mr. Parvez Dewan, ex-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir have helped this Commission in sifting the grains from the chaff and separating the truth from falsehood. Parvez Dewan, ex-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir have helped this Commission in sifting the grains from the chaff and separating the truth from falsehood. It has rightly been said that what we habitually say in our heads, we usually end up saying with our lips, which ultimately drags our feet. OP no. 9 when entered the witness box, was administered special oath at the request of the Attorney of the Complainants to speak truth. Under the special oath being a Hindu, he was a follower of vedic code of conduct. His fundamental duty was to speak truth and follow his duty He violated the moral code by suppressing the truth, as stands borne out from his evidence. This moral code of conduct has not only been prescribed in his own religion but every great religion of the world has in its own way said so because truth is one and various people call it variously. Latent Lord Buddha lurking in the seat of every soul reminds of abhorrence of violence even in the use of harsh words causing injury to others. Similarly, the holy Bible has said, " a gentle answer turns away wrath but a harsh word stirs up all anger". In its own way, the holy Quran instructs us, "a kind word with forgiveness is better than alms-giving followed by injury". Truth is always bitter but its result is sweet, while-as falsehood is momentarily pleasure-giving resulting injury to the recipient but ultimately revisits with retribution. As far as his official conduct was concerned, OP no. 9 gave false evidence in contradistinction to the averments made in his written version and running contrary to the entries made in the official record. He had concealed relevant record, which at the appropriate time surfaced in the proceedings in the manner stated above. Prima facie, it is established that Government money has been mis-appropriated, which fact had to be admitted by OP no. 9 in his cross-examination. Under law, he was required to take legal steps for findings out where the proceeds of receipts of the airfare had gone. In other words, he has to explain his official conduct for all the suspicious circumstances appearing against him. The arguments of Mr. Zubair, advocate as noted above for the reasons stated above in no way help OPs no. 1 and 9. The last plea of Mr. Zubair, advocate remains about the non-maintainability of the complaint. In other words, he has to explain his official conduct for all the suspicious circumstances appearing against him. The arguments of Mr. Zubair, advocate as noted above for the reasons stated above in no way help OPs no. 1 and 9. The last plea of Mr. Zubair, advocate remains about the non-maintainability of the complaint. In support of his plea, he had cited the law laid down in Haryana Urban Development Authority versus B.K. Sood (2005) INSC 606 and Indian Airlines versus D.P. Hazara, (supra) because it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 A of the Act which is two years and that Mr. N.A. Dendroo, advocate who had presented the complaint was also not holding the power of Attorney. This preliminary objection is factually incorrect as the complaint was not filed on 08.09.2005 but presented in the commission on 04.08.2005 and the next date fixed by the Hon'ble Member of the commission was 08.09.2005. It is thus found that the date of presentation was 04.08.2005 and thus the complaint was filed within the period of limitation of two years as the alleged cause of action had arisen on 05.08.2003. On the next date i.e. on 08.09.2005, the counsel was absent. He was also absent on the next date which was 19.10.2005. Thereafter, the case was listed on 26.10.2005 and the counsel had submitted the registered envelops and process was issued to the OPs for appearance. The Presentation of the complaint without accompanying power of Attorney is only a curable defect and cannot defeat the genuine case of the complainants because nowhere in the Act it is specifically prescribed that the counsel should also have the Power of Attorney at the time of presentation of the complaint. On the record, there is power of Attorney of Mr. N. A. Dendroo and this technical plea raised by the learned counsel has no force in these proceedings. The law cited at the bar has no bearing on the facts of the case and need not to be discussed. His other argument is that no evidence has been produced by the complainants to prove the allegation that the amount of airfare, which was received by OP no. 2 from the deceased, was actually received by OP no. 1 or OP no. 9. The complainants' evidence discussed above both oral and documentary has proved the fact that OP no. His other argument is that no evidence has been produced by the complainants to prove the allegation that the amount of airfare, which was received by OP no. 2 from the deceased, was actually received by OP no. 1 or OP no. 9. The complainants' evidence discussed above both oral and documentary has proved the fact that OP no. 2 while acting as an agent of OPs no. 1 and 9 had received airfare and the aircraft was being used for commercial purposes. The role of OP no. 9 was only that of a service provider and in no way was to be influenced by the exigencies or compulsions of the executive. His outlook and approach should have been purely judicial, where executive exuberances had no role to play . Undoubtedly, it is found that the management OP no. 9 even before the period of accident and thereafter had become lackisidical and had given a go-by to standard international norms for safety of flights. It is highly regrettable that the holders of the public office relating to the management of flying the helicopter in question both big and small had forgotten that the offices entrusted to them were like a sacred trust and such offices are meant for use and not mis-use. The modern day "neros" were looking elsewhere when the breaches of the Govt. Policy Decisions of the meeting held on 22.07.2003 were taking place. At the cost of repetition, deceased Mr. J.S. Kehlon being Civil Aviation Commissioner and present OP no. 9 (Mr. Katoch) were also present in that meeting. According to the terms and conditions of the policy decision, commercial flight in question had to be operated by the Tourism Department but J.S. Kehlon had succeeded in stepping into their shoes and appointed OP no. 2 as his agent. The official report of Divisional Commissioner, Srinagar Kashmir which was also of incriminating nature and the inquiry made by investigator of OPs no. 10 and 11 established negligent conduct of the concerned officials including deceased Mr. J.S. Kehlon to cause the loss to OP no. 1 regarding the insured cover of Rs. 8,45,00000/- when without insurance cover the helicopter was being allowed to ferry the passengers. Also, loss was caused to OP no. 1 when the insured peril was available to the extent of Rs. 5 lac of each passenger. Had OP no. J.S. Kehlon to cause the loss to OP no. 1 regarding the insured cover of Rs. 8,45,00000/- when without insurance cover the helicopter was being allowed to ferry the passengers. Also, loss was caused to OP no. 1 when the insured peril was available to the extent of Rs. 5 lac of each passenger. Had OP no. 9 obtained permission from the concerned authorities to ply the aircraft for commercial purposes, this loss including the loss caused to the helicopter could have been recovered. The inquiry report made by DGCA was treated as a piece of paper and allowed to gather the dust of cupboards of concerned officials. Law and justice seems to have become files in the hands of such unscrupulous public servants who were required to discharge their lawful duties. Where the fence starts to swallow the crops, no scope will be left for the survival of the law and order or truth and justice. Public order as well as public interest becomes martyrs and monuments. We are conscious of the facts that such observations should not be made by courts against persons and authorities unless they are essential or necessary for the just decision of the case. Rare should be the occasion and necessities alone should call for its resort. Courts are temples of justice and such respect they also deserve because they do not identify themselves with the causes before it or those litigating for such causes. The parties before it and the counsel are considered Pandits who perform the rituals respectively seeking protection of justice, parties directly and counsel on their behalf. There is no need or justification for any unwarranted besmirching of either the parties or their causes, as a matter of routine. Courts are not expected to play to the gallery or for any applause from any one or even need to take cudgels as well against any one, either to please their own or any one's fantasies. Uncalled for observations on the professional competence or conduct of a counsel, and any person or authority or harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made, unless absolutely required or warranted for deciding the case. Uncalled for observations on the professional competence or conduct of a counsel, and any person or authority or harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made, unless absolutely required or warranted for deciding the case. The other arguments advanced by the counsel is that the decision taken in the meeting held by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 22.07.2003 related to the use of Fixed Wing Plane Aircrafts stands falsified by the minutes of the meeting, copy whereof has been produced by the complainants (page no. 404 of the paper book). Mr. M.M. Amin, the counsel appearing for OP no. 2 has in course of his arguments submitted that airfare of the deceased passengers alongwith the fare of other passengers of the package tour was received by OP no. 2 and the same was handed over to OPs 1 and 9. He has supported the documentary evidence and oral evidence led by OP no. 3 with regard to the acceptance of the airfare in the mode prescribed by OP no. 2, as OP no. 3 was his sub-agent. Mr. T.A. Malik, the counsel appearing for OPs 10 and 11 has succeeded in proving that complaint is not maintainable against them and they had no privity of contract with the deceased and that complaint is time barred. The evidence of the parties has to be appraised in these proceedings as per the mandate of Sub Section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. In the proceedings before this Commission mere preponderance of possibility if suggests of possibility that a fact is said to be proved when the Commission either believes that it exists or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man under the circumstances of the given principle ought to act upon the supposition that it exists. The Fora constituted under the Act for the redressal of the grievances of the consumers are not fettered or bound by the technical rules contained in the Evidence Act. The rigor of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act is not applicable to the proceedings before the Consumer Fora constituted under the Act. What is required is that they must conduct themselves in accordance with the principles of justice, equity and good-conscience. They must follow procedures laid down in Section 11 of the Act. The rigor of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act is not applicable to the proceedings before the Consumer Fora constituted under the Act. What is required is that they must conduct themselves in accordance with the principles of justice, equity and good-conscience. They must follow procedures laid down in Section 11 of the Act. If that is done such proceedings cannot be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with. In other words, the procedure followed for disposition of justice is simple and informal and it can be stated that proceedings are not adversarial but are inquisitorial. In the backdrop of the above stated facts and the appreciation being made of the principles of the law, we have no hesitation in holding that OPs 1, 2 and 9 were carrying unfair trade, which was putting the lives of the passengers (consumers) in high zone of risk. The nature and manner of the trade became the factors of the accident in question. Now, the question, which falls for consideration and determination, is, to what relief the complainants are entitled? Mr. Chander Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainants in his arguments has submitted that the total annual taxed paid income of the deceased, Vineet Kedia was Rs. 17,22,830/- as he had paid income tax thereon to the tune of Rs. 4, 90,076/-. At the time of his death he was 41 years of age and multiplier of 15 would apply for making the award for the loss occurred to his dependants, which comes to Rs. 2,58,43,450/-. Deceased, Ritika Kedia had taxable annual income of Rs. 1,02,883/- and she was 37 years old at the time of death and multiplier of 16 would apply. In this way the loss of her income to the complainants comes to Rs. 16,46,128/-. In support of his contention he has cited the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. 9. We have considered the evidence brought on the record as well as the ratio decidendi of the case of Sarla Verma (supra). It is a proved fact that annual taxable income of the deceased Vineet Kedia was Rs. 17,22,830/- and the taxable income of deceased Ritika Kedia was Rs. 1,02,883/-. Reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. 9. We have considered the evidence brought on the record as well as the ratio decidendi of the case of Sarla Verma (supra). It is a proved fact that annual taxable income of the deceased Vineet Kedia was Rs. 17,22,830/- and the taxable income of deceased Ritika Kedia was Rs. 1,02,883/-. Basically, only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death:- (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of deceased and; (c) number of dependants. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case that in view of imponderables and uncertainties, a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects should be adopted where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income was in taxable range, the word "actual salary" should be read as actual salary less tax]. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40-50 years. Applying this thumb rule to quantify the actual loss of income to the complainant, we find that the annual actual income of the deceased Vineet Kedia who was 41 years old should be computed by making an addition of only 30% to his taxable income of Rs. 17,22,830/- which comes to Rs. 22,39,679 (Rs. 17,22,830+30% = Rs. 22,39,679). In case of Ritika Kedia, her taxable annual income was Rs. 1,02,883/- and she was of the age of 37 years. In her case, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual income becomes the multiplicand, which comes to Rs. 1,54,324/- (Rs. 1,02,883+ 50% =Rs. 1,54,324/-). In para 19 of the judgment, the table for adopting the multiplier has been prescribed and the multiplier of 14 will apply to the multiplicand amount of Rs. 22,39,679/- in respect of Vineet Kedia. Similarly, a multiplier of 15 would apply to the multiplicand amount of Rs. 1,54,324/- in respect of Ritika Kedia. Now the question arises how much amount has to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. No claimant would admit that the deceased was spend thrift even if he was one. 22,39,679/- in respect of Vineet Kedia. Similarly, a multiplier of 15 would apply to the multiplicand amount of Rs. 1,54,324/- in respect of Ritika Kedia. Now the question arises how much amount has to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. No claimant would admit that the deceased was spend thrift even if he was one. 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards the personal expenses if the deceased was married and = of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This formula has also been laid down in the above said case and applying the same to the facts of this case, the actual loss of dependency to the complainants for the death of their father Vineet Kedia comes to Rs. 2,09,03,671/- and in respect of the death of their mother Ritika Kedia comes to Rs. 15,43, 240/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has then laid down the guidelines in the said case for conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- for making an addition for the loss of estate etc. but that is not applicable to the facts of the present case because the case is being decided under the provisions of a special Act known as Consumer Protection Act, where under Section 3 of the Act, additional jurisdiction is vested to compensate a consumer for damages in respect of deficient service which has various ingredients to constitute it. The word "service" means service of any description, which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with Banking, Financing, Insurance, Transport, Process, Supply of electrical or another energy, Boarding or Lodging or both, House construction, Entertainment, Amusement or Purveying news or any other information under the contract of personal service. In case of rendering deficient service to a consumer, separate cause of action accrues under sub-head "O" of Section 2 of the Act. Under sub-head "R" cause of action also arises for carrying unfair trade practice, which means a trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any services adopted by any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice and other practices, which are inferred under various heads after this definition. Under sub-head "R" cause of action also arises for carrying unfair trade practice, which means a trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any services adopted by any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice and other practices, which are inferred under various heads after this definition. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is found that OPs 1, 2 and 9 were carrying unfair trade practice by using helicopter in question for commercial purposes when it had no insurance cover as well as requisite equipments, which stand named in the report of DGCA. The passengers were not covered under the insurance cover and the helicopter had been entrusted to deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon who was violating all the safety rules and regulations regarding the flights including over-stretching his mental and physical capabilities for the reasons best known to him. He was even taking off the flights for commercial purposes before the prescribed time specified by DGCA, which prohibition was before and after sun-rise and sun-set. His Controlling and Supervisory Officers had given a free hand to be above law and regulations. It is not understandable how a local functionary of OP no. 7, being a member of the belt force had shut his eyes for all what was happening all-around. OP no. 2 had become booking agent of passengers on behalf of OP no. 1 and OP no. 9. Despite service, he had failed to file written version but taking these proceedings as a game of chess, had hired the services of Mr. M.M. Amin, advocate who at his free will was appearing and disappearing in the proceedings. It appears that he had entered into a conspiracy with OP no. 9 to allow him to take the plea that the carrying of passengers against tickets was a private business affair of deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon and OP no. 2. When his sub-agent OP no. 3 opened his cards by filing the written version and led the oral evidence of Wing Commander (Retd.) Virender Gupta, he felt the heat of the proceedings. Wing Commander (Retd.) Virender Gupta by oral and documentary evidence has established the complicity of OP no. 9 with OP no. 2 as their booking agent who had been receiving the airfare. He through his counsel Mr. Wing Commander (Retd.) Virender Gupta by oral and documentary evidence has established the complicity of OP no. 9 with OP no. 2 as their booking agent who had been receiving the airfare. He through his counsel Mr. M.M. Amin had tried to prolong the proceedings, which fact has already been discussed. Admission was made by their counsel that fare received from the passengers was given to OP no. 9 including the fair receive by the deceased passengers. OP no. 9 has admitted that fare received has not been deposited into the Government Treasury. Such a conduct falls within the definition of the offence of mis-appropriation of Government money. Carrying illegal trade is encompassed by tortious act of Carrying unfair trade practice. Carrying of unfair trade had resulted into rendering deficient service. OPs no. 1, 2 and 9 by their such acts have infringed Section 2 of the Act and deprived the complainants of the protective umbrella of their parents at the young age of 14 years. Their deaths have impaired the future of the complainants to achieve education of quality and guidance. They have to suffer emotional upsurge and mental trauma throughout their lives. For their future settlement in profession and marriage prospects, they have also to bear the brunt. All these losses by way of General Damages cannot be quantified in financial terms. However, in our considered view, under the head of General Damages, the complainants are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 10 lac. The complainants have also claimed award for the actual expenses suffered by them for the visits of their Attorney Holder, advocates local and coming from Delhi as well as witnesses who came from Delhi to Srinagar and incurred boarding and lodging expenses. Besides that they have also spent amount for the last religious rites and expenses on funeral ceremonies etc. Though they have not led any evidence regarding the actual expenses incurred for taking the dead bodies to Delhi and it is not clear who had borne those expenses yet they are to be compensated on that count also for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The litigation expenses in lump sum are quantified to the tune of Rs. one lac. The liability of OPs 1, 2 and 9 shall be joint several. 50,000/-. The litigation expenses in lump sum are quantified to the tune of Rs. one lac. The liability of OPs 1, 2 and 9 shall be joint several. Be that as it may, on the basis of evidence of the case in hand we have determined the loss/compensation suffered by the complainants due to malafide, capricious and oppressive acts of OP no. 1, 2 and 9 as well as deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon who was the villain of the piece. It has come in DGCA report that he had been flying the helicopter in a rash and negligent manner and already had caused two accidents causing loss to the State exchequer. Why he remained above the reach of law is also a relevant issue in this case. Summarizing the amounts of compensation under various above said heads inclusive of litigation expenses the total of the award comes to Rs. 2,35,96,911 (Rupees Two crore Thirty five lac Ninety six thousand Nine hundred and eleven). The liability of indemnification of the complainants for the satisfaction of the above award of OP no. l, OP no. 2 and OP no. 9 shall be joint and several. In case the payment is not made of the awarded amount, within a period of two months from today, interest shall become chargeable @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the liability is liquidated. However, interest shall not be payable on the cost of litigation. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the ratio decidendi of the case of Lucknow Development Authority Versus M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 has to be followed. The loss of four precious human lives as well as of the concerned pilot who met his nemesis is the result of the acts of mis-feasance and malfeasance. Some of the delinquents are also behind the scene and after their identification OP no. l shall recover the amount of award from their pay or pension as the case may be. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/public servant. No authority can arrogate itself the power to act in a manner, which is arbitrary. Under our constitution sovereignity vests in the people. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/public servant. No authority can arrogate itself the power to act in a manner, which is arbitrary. Under our constitution sovereignity vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people-oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under the statute like the Consumer Fora or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law. Compensation or damages explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bona fide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it loses, its individual character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging. For that feelings of helplessness; In Ashby V. White (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938 92 : ER 126): the House of Lords invoked the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium in favour of an elector who was wrongfully prevented from voting and decreed the claim of damages. In Smith V. East Elloe Rural District Council 1956 AC 736: (1956)1 All ER 855 (HL); the house of Lords held that an action for damages might proceed against the clerk of a local authority personally on the ground that he had procured the compulsory purchase of the plaintiff's property wrongfully and in bad faith. In Farrington V. Thompson 1959 UR 286; the Supreme Court of Victoria awarded damages for exercising a power the authorities knew they did not possess. A licensing inspector and a police officer ordered the plaintiff close his hotel and cease supplying liquor. He obeyed and filed a suit for the resultant loss. In Farrington V. Thompson 1959 UR 286; the Supreme Court of Victoria awarded damages for exercising a power the authorities knew they did not possess. A licensing inspector and a police officer ordered the plaintiff close his hotel and cease supplying liquor. He obeyed and filed a suit for the resultant loss. The court observed:- "Now I take it to be perfectly clear, that if a public officer abuses his office, either by an act of omission or commission, and the consequence of that is an injury to an individual, an action may be maintained against such public officer." Liability to pay interest arises only if there is default or omission on part of the body, which caused damage or prejudice. The word compensation is of very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or loss. Before we part with the record of the case, by ordering OP no. 1, OP no. 2 and OP no. 9 to reimburse the complainants to the extent of awarded amount as a joint and several liability, we also feel that this commission has done its duty as a bulwark of consumers rights and has not allowed the consumers rights to whittle down, as that would have been sacrilege of our judicial functions. Every court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its order effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim "ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur ed id since quo res ipsa issue non protest." (Where anything is conceded, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist . Whenever, anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorized in express terms be also done then something else will be supplied by necessary intendment such a construction is not always available but when it advances the object of this Commission, as a court of law and equity, then it is adopted. At the same it is also necessary to safeguard the financial interest of the taxpayers whose hard earned money have been found drained out by tortious acts of the concerned officers and in order to find out the truth, the inquiry of catching hold of some of the black-sheep becomes necessary. At the same it is also necessary to safeguard the financial interest of the taxpayers whose hard earned money have been found drained out by tortious acts of the concerned officers and in order to find out the truth, the inquiry of catching hold of some of the black-sheep becomes necessary. We therefore, direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to constitute a Committee of experts in order to find out the causes how the present losses have been caused to the State exchequer at the cost of precious human lives:- (i) Why the decisions of the meeting held under the chairmanship of the then Chief Minister which was conveyed on 22.07.2003 in the presence of Principal Secretary to Government Civil Aviation, Secretary to Government Tourism Department etc. were allowed to be flouted when OP no. 9 as well as the deceased Civil Aviation Commissioner Mr. J.S. Kehlon were present? It was decided in this meeting that immediately helicopters should be utilized for on going Amar Nath Yatra and operations of flight be carried on no profit no loss basis. It was decided that Rs.50,000/- was made chargeable per sortie from Srinagar to Amar Nath Ji cave and back to Nehru Helipad. Tourism Department was required to provide necessary arrangements for ticketing at SRTC complex and also for transportation of passengers to and fro from the airport but in practice deceased Mr. J.S. Kehlon was allowed to arrange the availability passengers by appointing OP no. 2 as booking agent of OP no. 1 and had charged air fair at the rate of Rs. 23,500/- per passenger. Why Tourism Department had abdicated its authority in favour of deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon. (ii) It has been found that the proceeds of the air tickets were being mis appropriated. In his inquiry report Mr. Parvez Dewan had pointed out all the irregularities and illegalities and why no action was taken to recover the Govt. money followed by legal action under law? (iii) Who was responsible for allowing the mis-use of the aircraft 407 Bell to carry the passengers against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by using it for commercial purposes when there was no insurance cover and thus a loss of Rs.8,45,00000/- (Eight crore, Forty five lac) was caused to the State Exchequer alongwith loss of Rs. (iii) Who was responsible for allowing the mis-use of the aircraft 407 Bell to carry the passengers against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by using it for commercial purposes when there was no insurance cover and thus a loss of Rs.8,45,00000/- (Eight crore, Forty five lac) was caused to the State Exchequer alongwith loss of Rs. 10 lac which would have been available for reimbursing the loss to the passengers in respect of their claims of the present case? (iv) Why OP no. 9 Mr. Katoch being a public servant did not take any legal action against the alleged mis-appropriation of the Government money despite his Knowledge? (v) How the public documents, which undoubtedly were in the custody of OP no. 9, were not tendered in evidence and wilfully with-held? A false defence was taken in the proceedings on behalf of OP no. 1 and OP no. 9, which was further reiterated by giving false evidence in the court of law, which actions visits with penal consequences. (vi) How deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon was succeeding in flying the helicopters against flying norms and rules from Nehru helipad and even had succeeded in getting permission for the ill-fated flight as stated above from OP no. 7? (vii) Why the Finance department was not applying the rules of checks and balances in auditing the accounts and supervising the release and use of public money in a legal and regulated manner? (viii) Why no action was taken under law on the receipt of the report of Deputy Director Air safety Inspector of Accidents dated 25.12.2003 (DGCA report), which had attained finality from Government of India? The Inquiry Committee to be constituted can suo moto extend its contours beyond the above stated lapses, both retrospectively and prospectively from the date of accident in order to un-earth the identities of the cohorts and nailing them like chopping of the dead-wood from a diseased tree. This would help in weeding out the corruption, which has acquired the shape of monster, which is eating the vitals of the society. In this case, it has become apparent that an unsuccessful attempt was made to pollute the fair stream of administering justice even in the Commission. It is rightly said that when a judge quails justice wails. However, this fiendish and diabolical attempt was thwarted. In this case, it has become apparent that an unsuccessful attempt was made to pollute the fair stream of administering justice even in the Commission. It is rightly said that when a judge quails justice wails. However, this fiendish and diabolical attempt was thwarted. A court of law has its inherent power and duty to up-hold the dignity and majesty of law, which ultimately establishes the rule of law and peace in the society. We trust and hope that the learned Chief Secretary shall submit the report of the inquiry to the commission within a period of 4 months with its recommendations of taking suitable legal actions against the delinquents within the four corners of law. The reason for extending the period of inquiry, if felt necessary, may be communicated. A copy of this order be sent immediately to the chief Secretary to the Government of J&K Civil Secretariat, Srinagar for necessary action. The complaint stands accordingly decided and is consigned to records. Mr. Vivek Gidkari has deposed on affidavit that he had association with late Vineet Kedia as a Manager of his proprietor-ship concern of the name of "M/S Kedia Steels" for the last two decades. He had acquired god professional expertise for purchasing sick/closed industrial units. The witness was also conversant with the business affairs of "M/S Kedia Steels" owned by the deceased. The witness had been handling deceased's business matters of accounts under deceased's supervision and guidance. The witness had been getting deceased's accounts finalized and used to file income tax returns and attending all other remaining income tax related matters. All this was done under the guidance of chartered accountant Mr. Anil Gaur. He was fully convinced that the business affairs of deceased Kedias had gained very good market reputation within a short period. Deceased Mr. Vineet Kedia had started his career in a humble way but was progressing in a geometrical progression. In the income tax return for the year 2002-03, there was exceptional growth of about nine times from previous years earnings of his income. The complainants became orphans at the tender age of twelve years. In cross-examination conducted by the counsel of OP no. 3 stated that he could not continue the business of Kedia's Firm because there was no body to take decision on behalf of the deceased. In cross-examination conducted by the counsel of the OPs no. The complainants became orphans at the tender age of twelve years. In cross-examination conducted by the counsel of OP no. 3 stated that he could not continue the business of Kedia's Firm because there was no body to take decision on behalf of the deceased. In cross-examination conducted by the counsel of the OPs no. 1 and 9, he showed his ignorance about the conducted tour by the deceased couple. In cross examination conducted by the counsel of OPs no. 4 to 7, he showed his ignorance about the route followed by the helicopter in question and about the alleged lapses of the flight. In cross-examination, conducted by the counsel of OPs no. 10 and 11, stated that he had been working as Manager of the deceased's Firm from 1989 when he was verbally appointed as Manager by the deceased Vineet Kedia. Suresh Poddar in his affidavit has stated that the deceased Vineet Kedia and Ritika were his good friends and that he was one of the negotiators in finalizing their tip to Kashmir with travel agent M/s Multi Track (OP no. 3). He further stated that the tour was of commercial nature and every facility was to be provided as part of the compact deal including the airfare charges. He was not cross examined by the OPs. Mr. Dinesh Gupta in his affidavit has deposed that the deceased were close friends of their family and they together used to go and enjoy holidays both inside the country as well as abroad. He had written a letter to OP No. 3 for Amar Nath Darshan and his friend Mr. Suresh Poddar had received the details of the tour. OP No. 3 was paid Rs. 50,000/- in cash on 31.07.2003 by way of advance for the travel trip of 30 persons from the air travel charges for onward journey in helicopter from Srinagar to Baba Amar Nathji Shrine and back to Srinagar. Subsequently, on 01.08.2003, the remaining amount of advance of Rs. 20, 500/- was also paid to OP no. 3 in Delhi. The balance payment of airfare service in the amount of Rs. 6,34,500/- was to be paid in cash or by demand draft to OP no. 2 in his Srinagar office wing. Wing Commander, Varinder Kumar Gupta has appeared as an attorney holder on behalf of OP No. 3 and in his affidavit has stated that OP no. 3 in Delhi. The balance payment of airfare service in the amount of Rs. 6,34,500/- was to be paid in cash or by demand draft to OP no. 2 in his Srinagar office wing. Wing Commander, Varinder Kumar Gupta has appeared as an attorney holder on behalf of OP No. 3 and in his affidavit has stated that OP no. 3 acted as a Booking agent/Sub-agent of OP no. 2 for arranging bookings of interested persons for undergoing "yatra" of Baba Amar Nath Shrine to be covered from Srinagar to holy cave and back in the Jammu & Kashmir Government owned helicopter. Vide fax message (Annexure 2) OP No. 2 had advised him on 26.07.2003 that the details of the package of services would be furnished to him, which he had received, and they are reproduced in his affidavit. Accordingly OP no. 3 entered into negotiations with him for Baba Amar Nath shrine darshan on the basis of the discussions and above said fax letter for a group of 30 persons for whom letter was issued by Mr. Dinesh Gupta, furnishing them (OP No. 3) the names of 30 persons who wanted confirmation of booking (annexure 3). After negotiations detailed confirmation letter was issued by OP No. 3 to Mr. Suresh Poddar (witness) has referred annexure 4, wherein detailed programme and its itinerary with a final special discounted rate at Rs. 23,500/- per person was issued instead of original package rate in the amount of Rs. 25,000/- per passenger was conveyed. OP no. 2 had received the agreed amount from that group in Srinagar because vide annexure 5 OP no. 2 had made the payment to Inter Continental Grand Hotel, Srinagar, confirmation of which has been issued by the Hotel Management vide annexure-5. Op no. 3 had remitted to OP no. 2, the entire calculated amount of the package after deducting their due commission as agreed. They continued as booking agents of OP no. 2 even after the accident for the year 2004 (annexure-6). The State Government had made a plan regarding providing helicopter air travel service to the pilgrims of Shri Amar Nath Ji in a meeting held on high level, which received wide publicity in local newspapers, some cuttings were produced as annexures 7 & 8. OP no. 2 was the authorized agent of the J&K Government (OP no. 1) for booking passengers and OP no. OP no. 2 was the authorized agent of the J&K Government (OP no. 1) for booking passengers and OP no. 2 then appointed OP no. 3 as per the printed form (annexure 10) as Booking Agent. OP no. 3 has fully accepted the contents of the report of DGCA enquiry. That OP no. 1 had been grossly negligent and guilty for undertaking the non-scheduled flights for commercial purposes/activities without obtaining NSOP from DGCA and OP no. 2 was equally guilty for joining hands with OP no. 1 and 9. He admitted that he was acting as a Booking Agent for OP no. 2 to provide his office's facilities to the willing consumers/passengers intending to take air journey on package basis and accepting 10% of the cost of the tour per passenger. He was not authorized to issue any ticket of the air travel to a customer. OP no. 3 had never received any official authorization from OPs no. l and 9 to become Bookings Agent of OP no. 2. In the cross examination conducted by the counsel of the complainants, he showed his ignorance about the appointment of any other agent by OP no. 2 for booking purposes. Rest of the cost of the tour in the proportion of 90% was being paid by a customer to OP no. 2 at Srinagar. In the cross-examination made by the counsel of OPs no. 10 and 11 he stated that OP No. 2 had directed the deceased passengers to approach OP No. 3 for making booking for the package arranged by OP no. 2. Though, OP No. 3 had accepted 10% of the cost of the ticket yet their (OP no. 3's) commission was only upto 3% and the rest of the amount of the air ticket @ 7% per ticket had to be remitted back to OP no. 2. The receipt of 10% from the passengers at that time was the deduction of the air fare including cost of the tour on behalf of OP no. 2 for making booking arrangements on behalf of OP no. 2. OP no. 9 has deposed in his affidavit on his own behalf as well as on behalf of OP no. 1 that on the basis of the record available in the office, the complaint contains false and frivolous allegations because there was no agreement with OP no. 2 for making booking arrangements on behalf of OP no. 2. OP no. 9 has deposed in his affidavit on his own behalf as well as on behalf of OP no. 1 that on the basis of the record available in the office, the complaint contains false and frivolous allegations because there was no agreement with OP no. 2 with regard to "yatris tour" in question and on account of that basis no liability can be fastened on them. The flight in question was not operated for any commercial purposes. OP no. 1 and OP no. 9 have no knowledge or information in what capacity and under what terms and conditions; the deceased passengers were boarded in the flight of the ill-fated helicopter. Shri J.S. Kehlon who was the pilot and was also Civil Aviation Commissioner at that time, had died in the accident. OP no. 2 would be in a better position to clarify the ambiguities. No official record was available in order to throw light under what circumstances the flight was booked by any tour agency. Deceased pilot Mr. J.S. Kehlon was holding a vaild commercial license and was authorized to fly the crashed helicopter, which was Airworthy to undertake any flight in and around the State. Late Mr. J.S. Kehlon had not reached his superannution, as he was 59 years of age. The State Government (OP no. 1) had given Permission to undertake Air Safari exercise in a meeting which was held to promote tourism but it was decided that Air Safari flights would be carried only by fixed wing aircraft, which practice is prevalent in Tourism Departments in other countries like Nepal and Northern Pakistan for an aerial view of the Himalayas Peaks. He has categorically stated. "The Amarnath helicopter service was not discussed in that meeting." "The question how the deceased passengers were on the board in the State helicopter could have been explained by Nidesh Travels (OP no. 2), who can better explain the position." One of the passengers in accident had survived but his whereabouts are not known and his particulars are known to OP no. 2. There was no technical facility available either at Nehru helipad or at the helipad of Amarnathji cave. The judgment of the pilot was the only way to assess the weather. 2), who can better explain the position." One of the passengers in accident had survived but his whereabouts are not known and his particulars are known to OP no. 2. There was no technical facility available either at Nehru helipad or at the helipad of Amarnathji cave. The judgment of the pilot was the only way to assess the weather. In cross- examination conducted by the counsel of the complainants stated that recently he has been designated as Civil Aviation Commissioner and that " I am giving evidence as OP no. 9 and not on behalf of OP no. 1 and that I am a public servant and an employee of OP no. 1." That after the accident, which took place on 05.08.2003, he immediately from 06.08.2003 started working as Incharge Civil Aviation Commissioner. His Predecessor was also having the same designation. Helicoptr Bell 407 was owned maintained and operated by State Government (OP no. 1). At the time of accident, Mr. J.S. Kehlon was working as Civil Aviation Commissioner. He was incharge of maintaining the helicopter as well as to conduct the operations. He denied to have visited the site of the accident and had accompanied the dead bodies of the deceased or that of Pilot J.S. Kehlon. He admitted to have attended the meeting on 22.7.2003 regarding promoting tourism by Air Safari but do not remember the discussions and the operations which were to be conducted by the helicopter. He showed his ignorance about the fixation of air tariff at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per sortie from Srinagar to the holy cave and back to Srinagar. He denies his knowledge regarding the reporting of accident news in the local newspapers, which were shown to him and attached with the record. He denies his personal knowledge about the inquiry conducted by the then Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir regarding the accident but admitted that he has read the inquiry report given by DGCA. He admitted that the findings of DGCA, which is an autonomous body, are of binding nature. He showed his ignorance about any action taken by OP no. 1 in respect of officials who were indicted in that report. According to him, Mr. G.S. Reen who was a helicopter pilot was associated in the inquiry held by the then Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir and it was Mr. Reen who had raised the Insurance claim with OPs no. He showed his ignorance about any action taken by OP no. 1 in respect of officials who were indicted in that report. According to him, Mr. G.S. Reen who was a helicopter pilot was associated in the inquiry held by the then Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir and it was Mr. Reen who had raised the Insurance claim with OPs no. 10 and 11. After the insurance claim was repudiated, he did not approach any competent Forum except informed the State Law Department and elicited their legal opinion. The journey logbook of the destroyed helicopter was taken away by DGCA for holding inquiry and it was not in his office. All the Aviation fuel charges are borne by OP no. 1 from the budgetary allocations and the payment was made in a consolidated manner. He had no knowledge about the existing relationship of OP no. 2 with OP no. 1 or with OP no. 3. In his cross examination conducted by the Commission, stated that he had not brought into the notice of Hon'ble Chief Minister who is incharge of Civil Aviation Department about the alleged carrying of unfair trade by Mr. J.S. Kehlon and OP no. 2 by misusing the State owned helicopter. He had conducted only verbal inquiry through the Accounts Officer of his department about the deposits of the airfare into the Government treasury, which revealed that no such deposit was ever made. He admitted that on this aspect of the case, investigation by the Police was necessary but no formal report was lodged with the Police. During the proceedings of this case, he has come to know that deceased passengers had paid airfare to OPs no. 2 and 3 but it was not in his knowledge whether that was deposited in Government treasury or not. He admitted that no officer either of the rank of a DGCA or that of a Commissioner Civil Aviation has the legal authority to provide any free journey in a State owned aircraft. He showed his ignorance whether any act done by his predecessor in league with OP no. 2 either for providing free air service in the helicopter or mis-appropriating the airfare was an act of mis-conduct or not. However, he denied that he ever gave any free airlift to anybody. He admitted that helicopter in question at the time of the accident was not covered by :any commercial permit. 2 either for providing free air service in the helicopter or mis-appropriating the airfare was an act of mis-conduct or not. However, he denied that he ever gave any free airlift to anybody. He admitted that helicopter in question at the time of the accident was not covered by :any commercial permit. According to him, after he took over as Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA), he obtained commercial permit (NSOP) which means non-scheduled operators permit from DGCA and Ministry of Civil Aviation Government of India. He Admitted that after the alleged accident, OP no. 1 used his helicopter on commercial basis in the year 2004 to provide service to the pilgrims of Baba Amarnath yatra. He and OP no. l had been providing only operational helicopter but OP no. 8 was providing Air tickets to the Passengers on the prices fixed by them and they were utilizing the proceeds of the sale of tickets. OP no. 9 was only receiving actual helicopter usage charges on hourly basis and depositing the same in the Government treasury Srinagar. All the record is maintained officially by Accounts Officer of Civil Aviation Department. When he took over the charge as OP no. 9, only limited official record was available in the department but he did not took any step to bring this fact into the notice of the higher authorities. Audit of their department is being conducted by the Auditors on regular basis like in other Government departments. He was not sure whether he had perused any audit report prior to the year 2003. He had taken time on the allegations of the Attorney Holder of the complainants to produce the official record with regard to the back dated payments paid from 01.07.2003 to 31.10.2003 concerning the passengers who had travelled in the ill-fated helicopter Bell 407 but no such record was submitted on the record of the case afterwards in the Commission. Regarding the record, which had been produced by OP no. 3 as well as the Attorney Holder of the complainants in the Commission for the receipt of the airfare, he promised to initiate legal action. He denied any knowledge whether any permission was given to ply the commercial aircraft by the competent authority or not. Mr. Chander Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainants has submitted that vide authority letter (existing at page 367 of the paper book), Mr. He denied any knowledge whether any permission was given to ply the commercial aircraft by the competent authority or not. Mr. Chander Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainants has submitted that vide authority letter (existing at page 367 of the paper book), Mr. Zubair was authorized to file joint written version on behalf of OP no. 1 and OP No. 9 but in his evidence OP no. 9 had taken a U-turn that he was appearing as a witness only for OP no. 9 and not for OP no. 1. The meaningful legal consequence would follow that wilful silence has been adopted by OP no. 1. It is an admitted fact that in the ill-fated helicopter, five passengers besides its pilot were on board. In the accident four passengers as well as pilot died and only one passenger survived and this has come on the record that his whereabouts were not known and he could not be produced by the complainants to explain the cause of the accident or the circumstances leading to the accident. His disappearance is further fortified from the official inquiry, which was conducted by the then Divisional Commissioner Mr. Parvez Dewan who too could not locate him. In the backdrop of such facts, the principle of res ipsa loquitor will apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. In order to negate the plea of OPs 1 and 9 that there was no privity of contract to ferry the pilgrims of Shri Amarnathji, the learned counsel has referred to annexure `I', which is a claim form filled by the then Commissioner Civil Aviation department, Government of J&K on 18.09.2003 (page no. 311), wherein under column 2, showing the particulars of the purpose of flight in question, the reply given is that helicopter was being used at the time of accident to, "ferry of passengers". Furthermore, under sub head (f), it is admitted that the helicopter was being used with the consent and knowledge of OPs no. 1 and 9. Under head 7, sub head (ii) query is replied:- "all persons were being conveyed as passengers". Query under head 1(a), was replied that helicopter was insured by the, "Government of J&K Civil Aviation Department". The above said claim form was submitted on 18.09.2003 and the claim petition was filed later on after a period of about one year and 11 months i.e. on 04.08.2005. Query under head 1(a), was replied that helicopter was insured by the, "Government of J&K Civil Aviation Department". The above said claim form was submitted on 18.09.2003 and the claim petition was filed later on after a period of about one year and 11 months i.e. on 04.08.2005. The above said entries were of the nature of anti litem motem. The learned counsel has further referred to the report of the then Divisional Commissioner Kashmir Shri Parvez Dewan. The report is on the paper book of the complaint at pages 381 to 386, consisting of two parts, preliminary part and secondary part. The inquiry was conducted at the behest of the Government of J&K by its high ranking official who has opined that the helicopter had taken off 18 minutes before sun-rise and thus it was a flight taken off in an un-authorized manner because the pilot was supposed to take off only after sun-rise. He has also referred the finding of the report showing that deceased Group Captain Kehlon was getting only 5 to 6 hours rest at night. Mr. Parvez Dewan Inquiry Officer himself had read the entries made in the log-book, which established that Group Captain Kehlon was not resting his body adequately and un-adequate rest interfered with his judgment. The presence of five passengers boarded in the State owned helicopter was inferred by him from the established practice set up by him by accepting the fare from them through Bank Drafts. Such practice was established by him in the year 2003. Therefore, if Group Captain Kehlon had been receiving Bank Drafts in favour of the un-authorized Government Functionary from every individual who travelled in State owned helicopter nothing more was required. Subsequently, he also states that when house of Group Captain Kehlon was opened by his wife, all the Bank Drafts were recovered. He had made a request to OP no. 9 that he may also be provided the photocopies of Bank Drafts rendered by five passengers of the ill-fated flight, as they were needed for the record of the committee. He has also stated that the DGCA had taken the log-book of the crashed helicopter and kept the photocopies of the records of the crashed helicopter for the month before the accident. He has also stated that the DGCA had taken the log-book of the crashed helicopter and kept the photocopies of the records of the crashed helicopter for the month before the accident. On the information received by him from some officials of the Civil Aviation Department mentioned in his report, he found himself extremely disturbed and mentioned this fact to the Private Secretary of Civil Aviation Department. It is specifically stated in the report, " he informed that Group Captain Kehlon had been receiving Bank Drafts from private individuals travelling by the State helicopter X X X." Furthermore, the learned counsel has referred to the investigation report prepared by Squadron leader Kapil Mohan (retired) who was deputed by OPs no. 10 and 11 for the purpose of indemnifying OPs no. 1 and 9 for the alleged loss. In his report, it is stated that deceased Mr. Vineet Kedia and Mrs. V. Kedia had died in the accident and in the passenger Manifest they were on board alongwith other passengers named in his report. He has also stated that Pilot involved in the accident was Commissioner of Civil Aviation Department who was head of the establishment in the Jammu and Kashmir Government. On the basis of evidence gathered by him, the said pilot was knowingly violating the laid down safety measures, standards and regulations. He has also stated that at the time of the accident, there was dense fog in the area as had been reported to him by local CRPF jawans who were very close to the site of the accident. As per the journey log-book, the passengers on the Board of the helicopter were "Yatris to holy Amarnathji cave " and they were businessmen families from Delhi and not Government officials. They had paid fare for that flight. He has also referred to the operational violation about night flying and weather conditions and long flying hours. Besides that, the helicopter was not having the requisite permit from DGCA to operate the non-Scheduled helicopter operations (for commercial purposes). He had obtained the copies of the helicopter log-book from OPs no. 1 and 9 and they were found in order but OP no. 9 Mr. Surinder Katoch in his deposition on oath has flatly refused that any log-book was maintained or any record regarding the receipt of the flight fare was with him or with OP no. 1. He had obtained the copies of the helicopter log-book from OPs no. 1 and 9 and they were found in order but OP no. 9 Mr. Surinder Katoch in his deposition on oath has flatly refused that any log-book was maintained or any record regarding the receipt of the flight fare was with him or with OP no. 1. On the basis of the investigation report of Squadron leader Kapil Mohan, OPs no. 10 and 11 had repudiated the Insurance Claim vide their communication, copy whereof has been produced from the internet and placed on record. The reasons, which have been assigned in the letter of repudiation, have attained the finality and they cannot now be challenged even collaterally. The learned counsel has referred report submitted by The Deputy Director Air Safety (P.S. Shaw), Inspector of accidents on behalf of DGCA which is dated 25.12.2003, wherein under the heading Factual Information, it is stated that helicopter in question, which belonged to the Government of J&K had been engaged in daily flights to Shri Amarnath Helipad from Srinagar Nehru Helipad and back since 01.07.2003 and during that period the helicopter was being utilized for carrying VIP's, Top Government Officials and Passengers to the holy cave and back to the same Helipad. Most of the flights were being undertaken by Group Captain J.S. Kehlon Civil Aviation Commissioner. Captain J.S. Kehlon on 04.08.2003 at 8:45 IST had informed Quality Control Manager (QCM) Government of J&K Aviation Division i.e. OP no. 1 and on the following day i.e. on 05.08.2003, the same helicopter was required for flying at 5:25 IST. Thereafter, he had also informed at 9:15 IST that Base Operation IAF Srinagar Aerodrome (OP no. 7) about his moment on 05.08.2003 ETD for his first departure was 5:30 IST. The movement of the operational flights was cleared by the Base Operations IAF Aerodrome Srinagar (OP no. 7). For 05.08.2003, the first departure was cleared for 5:30 IST. This permission was granted under ADC NO. Y-17NC No. 39. Mr. Kehlon had arrived at Srinagar Nehru Helipad at 4:30 IST alongwith helicopter maintenance team. He inspected the helicopter and accepted the helicopter for it's flying after signing acceptance certificate and snag register with nil defects. Around 5:35 IST, OP no. 2 arrived at the Helipad with five passengers and handed over passenger manifest to the helicopter maintenance team. Mr. Kehlon had arrived at Srinagar Nehru Helipad at 4:30 IST alongwith helicopter maintenance team. He inspected the helicopter and accepted the helicopter for it's flying after signing acceptance certificate and snag register with nil defects. Around 5:35 IST, OP no. 2 arrived at the Helipad with five passengers and handed over passenger manifest to the helicopter maintenance team. All the five passengers and their hand baggage were frisked by BSF personnel on duty at the helipad. Next limb of the argument is a reference to the note of the meeting held by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on Tuesday, 22nd of July 2003 at 5 p.m at his residence. This meeting was convened by the then Hon'ble chief Minister and was also attended by the Principal Secretary to Chief Minister (Civil Aviation) and other officers in the hierarchy. Wing Commander Surinder Katoch of Civil Aviation Department now OP no. 9 was also present besides General Manager Operations (Tourism Development Corporation). Mr. J.S. Kehlon who at that time was Civil Aviation Commissioner was also present. This document, which is very much germane for the just decision of this case, was not produced by OPs no. 1 though it was official record. Rather, OP no. 9 had intentionally suppressed its production, which act stands established from his evidence given on oath when he had clearly stated that it was not in the official record. Thereafter, Attorney Holder of the complainants Mr. Raj Kumar Jajodia with great efforts took recourse to the Right to Information Act and elicited this document from the official record of OPs 1 and 9. The minutes of the meeting recorded that Civil Aviation Ministry in Government of India was informed that State of J&K was at liberty to utilize its helicopters/aircrafts for promoting tourism in the State. It was also recorded that, immediately the helicopters should be utilized for the ongoing Amar Nath Ji Yatra particularly for airlifting the sick, old and infirm to facilitate their pilgrimage at a reasonable cost, (Clause 3). The operation of the fights was to be carried on no profit and no loss basis, as it was intended to be promotional measures. At that time, it was decided that Rs. 50,000/- shall be chargeable per sortie from Amarnathji and back to the helipad services. Mr. The operation of the fights was to be carried on no profit and no loss basis, as it was intended to be promotional measures. At that time, it was decided that Rs. 50,000/- shall be chargeable per sortie from Amarnathji and back to the helipad services. Mr. J.S. Kehlon who at that time was Civil Aviation Commissioner had to come up with few more tourism related facts and possibility of acquiring one more helicopter so that it could be excessively dedicated to tourism related operations. Under heading 7 of the minutes of the meeting, the tourism department had to provide necessary support for ticketing at SRTC complex as also for transportation of the passengers to and fro to the airport. From this record of the Government, which is admissible under the Evidence Act being a public document, it can be safely stated that J.S. Kehlon was given free hand by OP no. 1 to undertake the operations of yatris to Shri Amarnathji cave by using the existing State helicopters as well as by flying one more helicopter in case that was possible and could be excessively dedicated to promote tourism related operations. Further more, the tourism department of OP no. 1 (OP no. 8 herein) had to provide necessary support for ticketing at SRTC complex as also for transportation of the passengers to and from the airport. It has also emerged that Government of India had also permitted the State Government to use the State helicopters for promoting the tourism in the State, as was mentioned in the minutes of the meeting. The learned counsel has further contended that in the written version filed by OPs 1 to 9, their specific defence is that they had no privity of contract either with OP no. 2 or with the complainants. In the same breath they have justified the flying of the helicopter in question by deceased J.S. Kehlon who is stated to be a qualified pilot. It is a proved fact that deceased Mr. Vineet Kedia and Mrs. Vineet Kedia were boarded in the helicopter in question, then the burden is shifted on OPs 1 and 9 to discharge how they were boarded and to that effect there is not even an iota of evidence. The complainants have led the evidence to prove the fact that they boarded the ill-fated helicopter against payment of Rs. Vineet Kedia were boarded in the helicopter in question, then the burden is shifted on OPs 1 and 9 to discharge how they were boarded and to that effect there is not even an iota of evidence. The complainants have led the evidence to prove the fact that they boarded the ill-fated helicopter against payment of Rs. 23,500/- each by availing the services of OP no. 3 who had persuaded them to purchase the tickets, as it was running their office in Delhi. The Attorney Holder of the complainant, Mr. R.K. Jajodia in his evidence on oath has proved the fact that the payment of Rs. 70,500/- was made towards their booking journey to the holy cave to Amarnathji on the conditions already stated in the pleadings. This payment was for a group of passengers of 30 persons and the deceased were included therein. Wing Commander V. Gupta in his deposition made on affidavit in para 5 has stated that their agency acted as booking agent/sub agent of OP no. 2 for booking the passengers/pilgrims. He has also admitted that OP no. 2 had its registered office in Jammu for booking the interested persons for Amarnath Shrine Darshan through Jammu and Kashmir Government helicopter. He has also averred in para no. 6 of his affidavit that fax message was received from OP no. 2 on 26.07.2003 with the details of the package, which are specified in annexure `2'. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was as a booking agent of OP no. 2 to provide facilities to the willing passengers intending to take air journey on package basis and accepting the commission from their fare to the extent of 10% and thereafter returning 7% to OP no. 2. In other words, he accepted his commission to the extent of 3% of the fare. The Attorney Holder also in his affidavit in para no. 6 has stated that the statutory violations have been detailed by the Deputy Director Air Safety Inspector of Accidents of DGCA in his report dated 25.12.2003, which he had produced on the record and further stated that the report has been on the record and further stated that the report has been accepted by the Government of India. He has further stated that OP no. He has further stated that OP no. 7 (the Air traffic Control at Srinagar Airport) permitted the ill-fated civilian helicopter to fly on 05.08.2003 in violation of Visual Flight Rules, which required that helicopter should fly after sunrise and visibility should be 5 Kms. He had further submitted that deceased Captain J.S Kehlon who had not taken adequate prescribed rest was allowed to take flights even on the 7th day in violations of the flight regulations. The negligence part of rendering service to the deceased passengers by OPs 1 and 9 stands corroborated by the findings of Inquiry Officer Mr. Parvez Dewan the then Divisional Commissioner Kashmir as well as admissions made in the claim form of Insurance policy submitted by OPs no. 1 and 9 to OPs no. 10 and 11 seeking indemnification of the loss of insured perils. The report of DGCA, which has been referred above is also of binding nature as stands accepted by the Government of India and that also speaks volumes about the negligence OPs 1and 9 as well as of OPs no. 2 and 7. OP no. 7 was allowing the flights to be taken off against rules. OP no. 9 Mr. S. Katoch in para no. 2 of his affidavit has stated that there was no agreement between the Civil Aviation Department and OP no. 2 and that the flight in question was not operated for any commercial purposes. His this part of the evidence runs against the admissions made by Mr. Gurmeet Singh of Civil Aviation Department Government of J&K who in para 2(d) and (f) of the Insurance claim form has stated that the helicopter in question was being used at the time of accident for "ferrying of passengers with the knowledge and consent of his employer (OP no. 1). (Sub-clause (d) of heading 2). The insurance claim form was also signed by other Wing Commander namely Jeetendar Singh. That OP no. 9 had intentionally suppressed this vital piece of evidence in order to mis-lead the Hon'ble Commission to arrive at the just decision of the case. The Insurance claim form got light of the day, when it was produced by the counsel of OPs 1 and 11 alongwith their written version. The Form was executed on 18.09.2003. In para no. 1 of his affidavit, OP no. The Insurance claim form got light of the day, when it was produced by the counsel of OPs 1 and 11 alongwith their written version. The Form was executed on 18.09.2003. In para no. 1 of his affidavit, OP no. 9 had deposed that he was appearing as a witness on behalf of OPs no. 1 and 9 but in cross-examination, he retracted and stated that he was only deposing as a witness on his own behalf i.e. OP no. 9. The discrepancy was explained by him due to over-looking. In para no. 2 of his affidavit, he has shown his ignorance about the status of OP no. 2 for conducting the tour packages, as he had no record or information with him. His evidence has been falsified by the record produced by OP no. 3 (at page no. 308 of the paper book), which establishes the fact that OP no. 2 was "official agent Civil Aviation Department Government of J&K for holy Amarnath package tour". Wing Commander V.K. Gupta appeared as a witness on behalf of OP no. 3 and in para 20 of his affidavit has deposed that OP no. 2 was the authorized agent of J&K Government for booking purposes and OP no. 3 was sub-Agent of OP no. 2. It is a printed Form issued by OP no. 2 to OP no. 3 and is produced as annexure 10 by OP no. 3. Not only that, in para No. 15 Wing Commander, V.K. Gupta has reiterated that having been satisfied with their service (OP no. 3 ) as booking agent; OP no. 2 had decided to continue his association with OP no. 3 in the year 2004. The supporting evidence is annexure 6 (at page no. 302 of the paper book). It is under the signatures of OP no. 2 as its Managing Director and in the form of letter dated 07.06.2004 wherein OP no. 2 has stated. "we are pleased to appoint you as our authorized agent for helicopter package for Shri Amarnath, which is commencing from 01.08.2004 to 31.08.2004 on the terms and conditions stated below, which need not to be reproduced here". The letter is on personal letter pad and OP no. 2 has shown himself as authorised registered agent of J&K Tourism Department. OP no. The letter is on personal letter pad and OP no. 2 has shown himself as authorised registered agent of J&K Tourism Department. OP no. 1 and 9 had suppressed the above stated documents, i.e. annexure `6' and `10' but were produced by OP no. 3 in the Commission. Mr. S. Katoch appearing as a witness on behalf of OPs no. 1 & 9 in para 4 of his affidavit has stated that air travel in order to promote the tourism for carrying pilgrims to Amar Nath Ji cave by providing helicopter service was not discussed in the meeting, which was held by the government to go ahead to undertake Air Safari exercise. The meeting was held to promote tourism to carryout the Air Safari flights only by Fixed Wing Air Craft, which is tourism activity prevalent in other countries like Nepal and North Pakistan etc. That OP No. 2 could only throw light how the alleged tickets were being sold in package tours for the Darshan of Holy Cave of Baba Amar Nath Ji Shrine. The evidence is false and runs contrary to the recorded minutes of the meeting, which were obtained by the Attorney holder of the complainants under the provisions of the RTI Act from OP Nos. 1 and 9. The meeting as already submitted was held on 22.7.2003 under the chairmanship of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister and was attended by OP No. 9 who then was Wing Commander Pilot Civil Aviation Department. Para no. 3 of the meeting records:- "that immediately the helicopter should be utilized for ongoing Amar Nath Ji yatra particularly for airlifting the sick, old and infirm to facilitate their pilgrimage by reasonable flights". Similarly, in para 4 which contains minutes of the meeting, it is stated that decision was taken that Rs. 50,000/- shall be chargeable per sortie from Srinagar to Amar Nath and back for the Helicopter service. OP No. 9 Mr. Surinder Katoch although had attended that meeting yet in order to ensure the compliance of the decision a copy was also sent to him as addressee No. 6 by Addl. Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister (Civil Aviation). OP no. 9 had further been burdened with the duty to re-work the packages to make those tours more attractive. This was an official record and its wilful concealment by OP no. 9 amounts to the commission of fraud. Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister (Civil Aviation). OP no. 9 had further been burdened with the duty to re-work the packages to make those tours more attractive. This was an official record and its wilful concealment by OP no. 9 amounts to the commission of fraud. In the cross-examination he has stated that Helicopter Bell 407 was owned, maintained and operated by State Government and deceased, Mr. J.S. Kehlon at the time of the accident was working as Head of the Department, having the designation of Civil Aviation Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir Government. He was incharge for maintaining the Helicopter as well as to conduct its operations. In cross-examination when pointedly he was asked about the decision taken in the meeting held on 22.07.2003 regarding promotion of tourism and his answer was that he had the knowledge only of tourism promotion by Air Safari and had failed in his memory about any discussion being held for helicopter's commercial operations. By giving such evasive answer he had suppressed the truth because he had attended the meeting and thereafter a copy of the minutes of the meeting was sent to him. He had thus mis-led the commission by giving false evidence. Similarly, he had suppressed the inquiry report submitted by Shri Parvez Dewan, the then Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. The inquiry report was available in the official record because Mr. R.K. Jajodia attorney of the complainants with the aid of RTI Act could elucidate the record of the report and submit in the commission. He has admitted in his cross examination that the finding of the enquiry report conducted by the DGCA is of the binding nature, though initially he had tried to be clever by not providing the correct answer to the questions put to him. He has shown his ignorance about any action being taken against negligent conduct of any official stated in the DGCA report. He has owned the entries made in the Insurance Claim Form raised by pilot Mr. Reen. He also admits that the insurance claim was repudiated but he did not take any appropriate legal action except informing the State Law Department for elucidating their legal expertise opinion. He has owned the entries made in the Insurance Claim Form raised by pilot Mr. Reen. He also admits that the insurance claim was repudiated but he did not take any appropriate legal action except informing the State Law Department for elucidating their legal expertise opinion. He has categorically stated that journey log book of the crashed helicopter was taken away by the DGCA for holding enquiry and it is not with his department, but here also he told blatant lie because the official record, which has been made available by Deputy Director General on behalf of DGCA to Mr. R.K. Jajodia Attorney Holder of the complainants on official request made to him vide reference no. AV-15013/4/03-AS dated 5th of August 2011, under the seal and signature of Mr. Bir Singh Rai Deputy Director General, reveals:- "In the year 2006, we received a request from Mr. S. Katoch, Chief pilot and Director Civil Aviation, J&K through an authority letter signed by him for handing over log-books and other relevant documents of the crashed helicopter VT-FJK of J&K Government to the authorized person Shri Sarwan Kumar. Accordingly, on Ist September 2006, we had handed over several log-books and documents (total five items) to Shri Sarwan Kumar, the authorized person, which were duly received by him against signed receipt. Furthermore, Mr. Parvez Dewan Inquiry officer at the end of his report has stated:-"while the Director General Civil Aviation has taken log-book of the crashed helicopter, the Civil Aviation Department has kept photocopies of the records of the crashed helicopter for the month before the accident." When he was asked by the commission in cross-examination that from his evidence, it had surfaced that alleged unfair trade was being carried by the then Incharge of Civil Aviation Department, as the State owned helicopter was allowed to be mis-used for using the same for un-authorized purposes by deceased Captain J.S. Kehlon and OP no. 2; did he inform his Hon'ble Minister being a public Servant? His categorical reply was that till date, he has not brought this fact into the notice. He admitted that he orally conducted inquiry through Accounts Officer of the Department in order to find out whether any deposits had been made in the government Treasury of the receipts of the Air Fare and the reply was in the negative by saying that, "no deposits stand made". He admitted that he orally conducted inquiry through Accounts Officer of the Department in order to find out whether any deposits had been made in the government Treasury of the receipts of the Air Fare and the reply was in the negative by saying that, "no deposits stand made". When the inquiry report of Mr. Parvez Dewan, the then Divisional Commissioner is looked into, it is found that he in his report had stated, "the practice of receiving payments from private individuals by way of Bank Draft had been started by me in the winter of 2002-03. Mr. Parvez Dewan also on the same practice had been receiving bank drafts in favour of an unauthorized Government functionary from every individual who travelled in the State helicopter. Mr. Parvez Dewan had gone to the house of Captain Kehlon and from his wife some Bank Drafts were recovered. Mr. Parvez Dewan had made request to the Civil Aviation Department, which at that time was headed by Mr. S. Katoch (OP no. 9) that he may be sent photocopies of those Bank Drafts rendered by the five passengers of the ill-fated flight as they were needed for the record by the Committee but they were not handed over as his report is silent. In the presence of above stated official record lying in the custody of OP no. 9, he was required to get police investigation done about the alleged mis-appropriation but nothing was done. This fact also proves that the deceased passengers had paid the airfare. While commenting upon the conduct of OP no. 9, the counsel has submitted that Mr. Katoch has also failed in his duty to challenge the repudiation of the Insurance Claim in the Competent Forum to safeguard the loss of revenue to the Government and the failure on his part also proves that the helicopter was used for commercial purposes. In his cross-examination, Mr. Katoch had admitted that helicopter in question at the time of the accident was not covered under commercial permit, which was required under law. He had assured the Commission that he would verify from the records and if any record is available that would be produced but he failed to produce any such record before the Commission . Katoch had admitted that helicopter in question at the time of the accident was not covered under commercial permit, which was required under law. He had assured the Commission that he would verify from the records and if any record is available that would be produced but he failed to produce any such record before the Commission . On the other hand, Attorney Holder of the complainants with the aid of RTI Act has provided the record in question before this Commission and discussed earlier from this evidence on the record. From this evidence, the deficiency in service of very serious nature has been proved on the part of OPs no. 1 and 9 and that OP no. 9 has committed cognizable offences. Lastly, it has been contended by the learned counsel that the Attorney Holder of the complainants, Mr. Raj Kumar Jajodia in his affidavit has stated in para 15 that his son-in-law late Shri Vineet Kedia was an educated person, being a graduate experienced and successful businessmen. His daughter deceased Shri Ritika Kedia was an educated lady having the qualification of B.com (Hons.) and was qualified Gemnologist. They were married on 17th of November 1990 and were Income Tax Payers. In the cross-examination, he stated that his son-in-law and daughter (deceased) were continuously progressing in their business and he had produced their Income Tax returns, which he got proved by the concerned Chartered Accountant. He has further stated that at the time of death of her daughter, she was 37 years old while-as his son-in-law was 41 years old. His son-in-law was doing the business of Sick Industrial Units and after reviving them used to sell them in the market or would demolish them and sell their parts in the market. He was doing a very good business as it was flourishing day by day. His deceased daughter was doing the business of Gemnology i.e. the sale and purchase of gems including jewellery and was giving consultancy to his clients. She was also doing the business of real estate as well as sale and purchase of shares. He has also talked about the family history of his son-in-law and his daughter that they would have enjoyed longer spell of their lives. The Counsel has referred to the evidence given on affidavit by the chartered Accountant namely, Mr. She was also doing the business of real estate as well as sale and purchase of shares. He has also talked about the family history of his son-in-law and his daughter that they would have enjoyed longer spell of their lives. The Counsel has referred to the evidence given on affidavit by the chartered Accountant namely, Mr. Anil Gaur who has stated that he had found late Vineet Kedia a man of great vision and good judgment in his dealings. The deceased couple was having spiraling growth in their business activities and from tabular profitability growth of Shri Vineet Kedia, he shows the growth of three relevant commercial financial years, which are reproduced herein below:- Assessment year Gross total income Taxable income Income tax paid 2000-01 1,88,500/- 1,72,060/- 26,736/- 2001-02 2,29,866/- 2,17,866/- 44,516/- 2002-03 20,59,953/- 17,22,830/- 4,90,076 He has given his opinion that there was 900% business growth of the deceased for the last financial year 2002-03. Similarly, he has given the tabular growth of income of late Ritika Kedia, which is reproduced herein below:- Assessment year Gross total income Taxable income Income tax paid 2000-01 1,12,178/- 1,12,178/- 12,560/- 2001-02 1,03,126/- 1,02,020/- 10,533/- 2002-03 1,03,311/- 1,02,883/- 9,576/- His other witness is Vivek Gidkari who has shown his association with Mr. Vineet Kedia for the last two decades and thereafter had become the Manager in his partnership concern known by the name and style of M/S Kedia Steels. He has also shown his association in the business of Late Vineet Kedia and Late Ritika Kedia. He had been handling their business matters including dealing with accounts under their supervision and guidance. He was working with the witness Anil Gaur in respect of the Income Tax related matters of the deceased. He has also spoken about the quantum growth in their business. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he could not continue with the steel business after the death of the couple and it came to a grinding halt. For the last assessment year 2002-03, the gross income of the deceased Shri Vineet Kedia was Rs. 20,59,953/- and he had paid income tax thereon to the tune of Rs. 4,90,076/-. The taxable income was Rs. 17,22,830/-. The gross total income of late Shri Ritika Kedia for the last assessment year 2002-03 was Rs. 1,03,311/- and she had paid income tax to the tune of Rs. 9,576/-. 20,59,953/- and he had paid income tax thereon to the tune of Rs. 4,90,076/-. The taxable income was Rs. 17,22,830/-. The gross total income of late Shri Ritika Kedia for the last assessment year 2002-03 was Rs. 1,03,311/- and she had paid income tax to the tune of Rs. 9,576/-. The deceased Vineet Kedia was 41 Years old at the time of death and the multiplier of 15 as prescribed under second schedule of Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act will apply. Shrimati Ritika Kedia at the time of her death was 37 years old and a multiplier of 16 will apply for assessing the loss. While concluding his arguments, the counsel has stated that keeping in view, the young age of the children as well as of the deceased although the multiplier is generally a guiding mode yet in view of the peculiar circumstances, the courts can take into factor other circumstances. The second limb of the argument was in respect of the conditions of the general damages for loss of leaving education and mental agony, which family has undergone and the old mother of the deceased Mr. Vineet Kedia could not bear the shock, and died. He has pleaded that the hapless minor children at the age of 12 were thrown on the road side and they had to dis-continue their studies in a good school under parental care and now their care is being taken by their old maternal grandfather who is at the age of 76 years as an Attorney Holder and is at the fag end of his life. He has claimed the sum of Rs. 3 crores. Besides that the counsel has pleaded that the Attorney Holder of the Complainant is coming on every dates of hearings from Delhi to Srinagar and bearing the cost of boarding and lodging. He has also brought four times hired advocates from Delhi as well as engaged the services of a local lawyer from Kashmir so while awarding the costs of the litigation that factor may be kept into account. He has also brought two witnesses from Delhi and their boarding and lodging was borne by him. With regard to the quantum of compensation, Mr. He has also brought two witnesses from Delhi and their boarding and lodging was borne by him. With regard to the quantum of compensation, Mr. Chander Shekhar has contended that deceased Vineet Kedia had a consistent increase in his earnings from the business by nine folds increase on the last year income tax returns, which has been proved on the evidence already discussed above. There was ample chance for the growth of the business of course depending upon unforeseen circumstances. Similarly, deceased Ritika Kedia had the last year's gross income of Rs. 1,03,311/- and she had also very good prospects for the life. The general damages in respect of deceased couple under the head Shock and Mental Agony has been claimed at Rs. 3 crore, as the children were left orphans. For the loss of company consortium and affection Rs. 3 crore have been claimed. Under other heads, a compensation of Rs. 2 crore has been claimed. The last rites expenses such as funeral expenses etc. may be awarded keeping in view the status of the deceased. 4. In rebuttal, it has been contended by Mr. Zubair Ahmad, advocate, appearing for OPs 1 and 9 that the Petition is time barred because the complaint was presented in the Commission on 08.09.2005 and it was not accompanied by any application for condoning the delay. Also, Mr. N.A. Dendroo, advocate had not filed his Power of Attorney on that date as well. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority versus B.K. Sood (2005) INSC 606. He has also cited the case of Indian Airlines versus D.P. Hazara, copy whereof has been attached.