SC Stays Grant Of Rs.55.5 Lakh Compensation To An Injured Air Warrior

The Supreme Court’s Vacation Bench of Justices L.Nageswara Rao and Navin Sinha, today (Tuesday) stayed the award by the Delhi High Court of Rs.55.5 lakh to a Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force, who sued the Ministry of Defence and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, for his injuries which he suffered while bailing out of a fighter aircraft, whilst on duty in a MiG 21 aircraft in 2005.  The bench issued notice on the appeal filed by the HAL against the Delhi High Court verdict.

On January 4, 2005, whilst on a routine training sortie, Wing Commander Sanjeet Singh Kaila’s MiG 21 (T-75) burst into flames soon after take off; he bailed out after all responses to save the aircraft failed.  The aircraft crashed over Nal Air Base.  Kaila ejected seconds before the aircraft hit the ground, but not before he managed to steer it away from human habitation, saving several lives in the process.

In the incident, Kaila suffered injuries, which progressed into a condition called Cervicalgia, forcing him into a medical category lower than the one that was required of him to continue as a fighter pilot.

Kaila then sued the Government and the HAL, for compensation and an apology.  He based his claim inter alia on his knowledge, ascertained through RTI applications filed in 2012 and 2013, that the cause for the accident was poor workmanship on the part of HAL, resulting in fatigue crack, fatal to the aircraft.  He claimed therefore, that the lack of airworthiness of the aircraft, induced by purely human factors, resulted in, violation of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, more specifically, his right to work in a safe environment.

Kaila relied on the  Supreme Court’s judgment in Vishakha v State of Rajasthan, which is often cited in cases where victims alleged sexual harassment at work places. Vishakha’s emphasis on “the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade or profession depends on the availability of a safe working environment”  came to Kaila’s assistance, as he argued that “safe environment” would extend to the equipment supplied to the Indian Armed Forces, the maintenance of safety standards including in repairs and handling of equipment by its personnel.

While a member of the Armed Forces ungrudgingly consents to the risk that comes with his enlistment in the forces, this does not justify providing personnel with poor equipment and resultantly negligently putting them in harm’s way, it was pointed out.

Kaila submitted that the duty to protect a soldier’s life, places an obligation upon the respondents to take all reasonable steps to prevent manufacturing and technical snags.  Any defective defence equipment handled and operated by the forces places them not only in danger but also significantly endangers and jeopardizes the security and defense preparedness of the nation, it was further contended.

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices S.Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma, on May 2, accepted Kaila’s submissions and directed the Union of India to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs  for the trauma and agony which he underwent, and as liability for non-disclosure of relevant information relating to unsafe workplace.  The bench also held HAL liable to compensate Kaila Rs.50 lakhs for the defective equipment and violation of his right to life and dignity, and Rs.50000 separately towards costs of the legal proceedings.

The hearing of the HAL’s appeal in the Supreme Court thus will be of considerable interest.