MH370 A total of 76 family members representing 32 passengers of the ill-fated MH370 have filed claims against the national carrier Malaysia Airlines for negligence, conspiracy and breach of statutory duty.

The suit was filed on Thursday, and today they managed to extract the necessary documents as the suit is filed under the Montreal Convention. Under the convention, claims made against an airline company should be made before the expiration of two years.

Filed by the law firm Messrs Tommy Thomas at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, it appears to be a case with the largest number of plaintiffs in Malaysia and possibly the world. This is apart from another suit filed by family members in New York.

They are seeking claims over the disappearance of the Beijing-bound flight from Kuala Lumpur.

Two American lawyers from the Miami-based firm Podhurst Orseck will appear for the families along with lawyers Thomas and Ganesan Nithi.

The passengers comprise Americans, Indians, Chinese and Malaysian nationals.

The plaintiffs named Malaysian Airline System Bhd (the administration company), Malaysia Airlines Bhd, the director-general of Department of Civil Aviation, Royal Malaysian Air Force and the Malaysian government as respondents.

The Boeing 777 left slightly before midnight from the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Sepang on March 7 and disappeared in the early morning of March 8. It was carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew.

All in all since last week, family members of 48 passengers from MH370 had filed suits in Malaysia.

Ganesan told reporters that the plaintiffs have decided to file the suit in Malaysia as they trust and believe the court system here.

He said the American lawyers will file the necessary applications for leave to represent the families here.

"We hope there would not be any striking-out applications," Ganesan said.

Administrator did not grant permission

According to the statement of claim, the administrator has not granted consent and the plaintiffs claimed the administrator had acted ultra vires (beyond its powers) of the MAS Act.

“The administrator in a press statement dated Feb 25 this year pledged that MAS would act in 'good faith' to determine fair and equitable compensation and that MAS has insurance coverage in place to meet its obligations to pay such compensation, thereby inviting family members of the passengers of MH370 to commence legal suit against MAS, and to claim compensation.”

In these circumstances, the statement of claim stated, the plaintiffs contend that the refusal of the administrator to grant consent to the commencement of this suit does not bar or preclude the plaintiffs from filing the same.

The plaintiffs further claimed that the Montreal Convention - where Malaysia is a signatory - was given effect sometime in 2007 with amendments to the Carriage by Air Act 1974, and MAS and Malaysia Airline are carriers within the meaning of the convention and the Act.

They claimed the disappearance of the airline is an “accident” within the meaning of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, and this accident led directly to the injury and death of everyone on board.

The plaintiffs further claimed that the disappearance and the death of the 239 passengers had shown the airline was negligent, resulting in a lack of finality and closure to the plaintiffs resulting in them to suffer emotional, physical pain, distress and mental suffering.

The families further alleged on the failure to properly maintain its computer tracking system which saw Cambodia to appear when a map of Vietnam was displayed, and that the airline failed to disclose its cargo manifest and allowing 2,453kg of lithium batteries to be transported, which could cause flammability hazard.

MAS, DCA, RMAF and gov't conspired

The statement of claim further stated that MAS breached its contract by not ensuring the airworthiness of MH370 and the safety of the passengers on board.

The plaintiffs further contended that MAS, DCA, RMAF, the transport ministry and the Malaysian government had illegally conspired with each other and acted grossly negligent manner to obstruct, frustrate, and prevent the discovery of their aircraft and in turn resulted in a delay in the conduct of the MH370 search and rescue operations.

They further contended the defendants concealed information relevant to the aircraft's disappearance by omitting material information from the preliminary report and making untrue and dishonest statements to the press as to the actions taken to track MH370, and the likely location where the aircraft disappeared.

They are claiming for loss of present and future financial support, loss of services, loss of family love and affection and irreparable psychological harm and trauma.

As a result they are claiming special damages, general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages, costs of bereavement.

Meanwhile, lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo told reporters her firm is also representing families of two Iranian and a Malaysian family in filing a similar suit over the disappearance of the aircraft.