Introduction
Air travel has become an integral part of contemporary life for individuals worldwide, and in the past few decades, it has also become increasingly important in countries like India. A scenario of rapid economic growth, urbanization, and globalization, India’s aviation segment has boomed to the hilt, enveloping the sky as a busy bridge to attain economic activity and social networking.
However, this staggering growth has also brought to the surface a number of inherent weaknesses which were exposed by the devastating crash of Air India Flight AI 171, which resulted in the loss of more than 240 people. This event not only cast a long shadow on the nation’s aviation safety rules but also sparked a new round of discussions on formal legislation that governs India’s civil air transportation. At the heart of the matter lie basic questions about regulatory supervision as well as conceptions surrounding liability and mechanisms.
The legal framework governing aviation safety originated from the Aircraft Act of 1934 and has been supplemented by the Aircraft Rules of 1937. The key statutory bodies, such as the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), and the Ministry of Civil Aviation, are the ones that are primarily administering the oversight. Their roles are safety regulation, enforcement, accident investigation, and other tasks that are safety-related.
Moreover, the Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) issued by DGCA are the codes of conduct and rules for the aviation industry. It is still criticized for the reasons of being old, and that it is fragmented and there is insufficient harmonization with international civil aviation norms laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which is quite surprising.
The Air India Flight AI171 Crash
On the 19th June 2025, an Air India plane carrying passengers heading to Gatwick Airport in London tragically crashed soon after it had departed from Ahmedabad in Gujarat. The crash has resulted in 241 casualties, including passengers and crew, and eight on the ground, including four medical students, leaving only one British man as a survivor.[1] The plane comprised nationals from India, Britain, Portugal, and Canada, among others.
This catastrophic event has raised considerable concerns regarding international liability, compensation mechanisms, and jurisdictional implications within both domestic and international aviation law. In response to this tragedy, the Tata Group, the parent company of Air India, has announced an interim ex gratia compensation of ₹1 crore to alleviate the suffering of the families of the deceased and has committed to providing medical assistance to the injured.[2]
Statutory Regulations Regarding Aviation Safety
The Aircraft Rules, 1937
The Aircraft Rules, 1937, established under the Aircraft Act, provide extensive operational guidelines for incident investigation. According to Rule 161, no aircraft shall be flown unless it has meters and weighing equipment installed as required. Additionally, private aircraft shall not be flown contrary to the flight profile specified during the two hours before and after sunrise and the two hours before and after sunset.[5]
This regulation establishes the fundamental requirement that aircraft must be certificated as airworthy for all flight operations. Part VI of the Rules further stipulates that aircraft must be maintained under prescribed conditions and must hold a current certificate of airworthiness.
Rule 29 mandates aircraft registration and adherence to all ascribed terms and conditions on airworthiness certificates, providing a comprehensive framework for continued safety oversight throughout the lifecycle of an aircraft.[6]
Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam 2024
The Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam 2024 replaces the Aircraft Act of 1934 to modernize India’s aviation regulations. Its objectives include enhancing safety, protecting passenger rights, and promoting economic growth through streamlined processes and increased investment. The Act eliminates redundancies to better align with contemporary aviation needs.
It strengthens the roles of the DGCA, aligning with international standards such as the Chicago Convention (1944).[7] Emphasis is placed on compliance with ICAO recommendations.
The certification and licensing requirements for aircrew, air traffic controllers, aircraft maintenance engineers, and flight dispatchers have been enhanced. Additional qualifications, training, and experience are now required to obtain licenses and ratings, ensuring that only properly functioning and safe aircraft are permitted to operate in India’s airspace.
Role of Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) serves as the principal regulatory authority under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It holds both quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions in the civil aviation sector. Its authority originates from the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937.[8]
The DGCA is responsible for overseeing civil aviation safety and enforces Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs), which serve as subordinate legislation to ensure safety compliance, licensing, airworthiness, and operational standards.
Key functions include:
- Issuance and suspension of air operator certificates
- Conducting air safety audits
- Certification of aircraft and aviation personnel
- Enforcement of penalties for statutory non-compliance
Law Regarding Compensation to the Victims
Montreal Convention, 1999
The most critical regulation on airline liability and victim compensation after a plane crash is the Montreal Convention of 1999. It is a multilateral treaty governing liability for death, injury, baggage loss, and delays during international travel.
The Convention applies specifically to the “international carriage of persons, baggage, and cargo performed by aircraft for reward” between signatory countries. Importantly, its provisions apply from boarding until disembarkation, covering accidents during active carriage.
Liability Under the Convention
Article 17(1) establishes the principle of airline liability: “The carrier is liable for the harm sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft.”[9]
This introduces strict liability, meaning the airline is held accountable without passengers needing to prove negligence. The airline cannot avoid basic liability once an accident — defined as an “unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger” — is proven.
In MC Mehta v Union of India[10], the Supreme Court ruled that any deficiency in regulatory mechanisms leading to loss of life due to environmental or industrial negligence would make the state liable. This precedent now extends to aviation, where regulatory shortcomings may lead to state accountability for air accidents.
Article 21 implements a two-tier liability system:
- In the first tier, airlines are strictly liable up to 128,821 SDRs (approximately ₹1.4 to ₹1.57 crore).
- Beyond this, unlimited compensation may be claimed unless the airline proves:
- The damage was not due to its negligence or wrongful act;
- The damage was solely due to the negligence or wrongful act of a third party.
This system minimizes the chances of uncompensated losses in major aircraft accidents. It provides a balanced approach that safeguards passengers while offering a limited defense pathway for airlines facing claims exceeding the strict liability threshold.
The Two-Tier Compensation System
As per the Convention, airlines are required to pay a minimum compensation amount in the event of death or serious injury, which is currently set at around ₹1.82 crore per passenger. However, if negligence is proven, particularly on the part of the aircraft manufacturer, the liability can become unlimited. In such cases, there is no cap on compensation, and the final amount is determined through court proceedings or settlements between the affected families and the responsible parties.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) revised this figure upward from 128,821 SDRs in December 2024 due to inflation exceeding the 10% threshold. Beyond the SDR threshold, compensation becomes theoretically open-ended but with a different onus of proof. For claims above 151,880 SDRs, the airline can escape liability by showing either that it was not negligent or that the harm was due entirely to the conduct of a third party.
Requests for further compensation normally take into account the age of the deceased, his/her income, the number of dependents, and other personal circumstances. Moreover, families retain the right to pursue claims based on actual financial losses.
Article 28 of the Convention pertains to immediate financial assistance through advance payments. Air India’s announced ₹1 crore serves as interim relief rather than a final settlement. Typically, these advance payments are required to be made promptly to address the immediate economic requirements of families, especially for funeral costs and temporary living expenses. However, these payments do not constitute admission of liability and may be offset against final compensation amounts. Airlines must provide these funds “without delay” to eligible persons, even before investigations conclude.
The Montreal Convention has been incorporated into India’s domestic legal system through the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The issue regarding the calculation of compensation under the Act gained attention in Airport Authority of India v. Ushaben Shirishbhai Shah.
Furthermore, in Ashok Agrawal v. Indian Airlines, Indian Airlines Flight 113 crashed near Ahmedabad airport, leading to the death of 133 of 135 people on board. Indian Airlines initially offered ₹2 lakh per victim as compensation under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The court increased the total compensation to ₹6 crore, apportioning liability 70:30 between Indian Airlines and the Airport Authority of India. This case established that courts could award compensation beyond statutory limits if negligence was proven, setting a precedent for higher payouts in aviation accidents.
Third-Party and Ground Victim Liability Considerations
In addition to claims from passengers, the crash involving AI171 had tragic effects on those on the ground, including fatalities and injuries among doctors, hospital personnel, students, and local residents in Meghaninagar, a heavily populated area close to the airport.
Unlike the passengers, these individuals have different legal options for seeking compensation. The Tata Group has confirmed that the ₹1 crore compensation initially promised to passengers will also be extended to the families of those who lost their lives on the ground. Moreover, the company has pledged to cover the medical costs for all individuals injured in the incident.
Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
Ground victims are unable to invoke the Montreal Convention, as it applies solely to passengers. Therefore, the families of deceased ground victims are required to file claims under the Fatal Accidents Act of 1855 in India. This law allows family members to pursue compensation for losses caused by a death resulting from the wrongful act, negligence, or default of any party.
However, this method poses considerable hurdles for claimants. First, they are tasked with demonstrating the airline’s negligence, which is a significant challenge when contesting a well-funded airline. Second, claims must be submitted within two years of the date of death. Lastly, the Act focuses only on cases of death, leaving out serious injuries and property damage.
Product Liability Under the Consumer Protection Act
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, families possess legal standing to initiate lawsuits against airlines for “deficiency in service.” In the notable case of the Mangalore crash (2010), victims’ families sought recourse through consumer courts and foreign jurisdictions. The Supreme Court later awarded a substantial sum of ₹7.64 crore to a victim’s family.
Therefore, victims may consider pursuing product liability claims against Boeing if there is evidence indicating that aircraft defects played a role in the crash. These lawsuits generally assert that design flaws or manufacturing mistakes made the aircraft excessively dangerous. According to product liability law, plaintiffs are required to prove that a defect was present and directly caused or contributed to the incident.
Conclusion
Compensation for the physical damage may be awarded; however, the mental pain and suffering cannot be compensated by the Montreal Convention. Families affected by the plane crash encounter significant legal challenges during the difficult time. Although, the Montreal Convention establishes clear rights for victims’ families, primarily through its two-tier compensation structure.
First, the strict liability threshold of 151,880 SDRs (approximately ₹1.85 crore) ensures immediate baseline compensation without requiring proof of airline negligence. Second, additional compensation becomes available when negligence can be demonstrated. Jurisdictional flexibility stands as another crucial advantage for claimants.
Families may file cases in India, the United Kingdom, or the passenger’s country of residence depending on which legal system offers the most favourable compensation framework. This choice significantly impacts both procedural requirements and potential settlement amounts. Ground victims and property damage claims follow different legal pathways, primarily through India’s Fatal Accidents Act.
References:
- India Plane Crash: What Investigators Might Examine, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/13/business/india-plane-crash-investigation.html (last visited on 18 June, 2025).
- Air India Plane Crash in Ahmedabad, available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ahmedabad-plane-crash-live-updates-10062373/ (last visited on 18 June, 2025).
- The Aircraft Act, 1934 (Act No. 22 Of 1934), § 5.
- Id, § 7.
- Aircraft Rules of 1937, available at: https://www.civilaviation.gov.in/sites/default/files/migration/moca_000947 (last visited on June 18, 2025).
- Id.
- Pioneering Change or Perpetuating Flaws? A Deep Dive into the Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024, available at: https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/blog/pioneering-change-or-perpetuating-flaws-a-deep-dive-into-the-bharatiya-vayuyan-vidheyak-2024/ (last visited on June 18, 2025).
- P Vivek, “Analyzing India’s National Civil Aviation Policy and Global Trends in Contemporary Civil Aviation Policies”, International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (2024).
- The Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99), available at: https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/mc99/ (last visited on 19 June, 2025).
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0092/1986.
- Airport Authority of India v. Ushaben Shirishbhai Shah, MANU/GJ/0539/2009.
- Ashok Agrawal v. Indian Airlines, MANU/GJ/0013/1990.
- Compensating Ground Victims of Aircraft Accidents: A Legal Blind Spot, available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/01/30/compensating-ground-victims-of-aircraft-accidents-a-legal-blind-spot/ (last visited on June 19, 2025).
- Swati Vaishnaw & Venudhar Routiya, “An Analysis of Consumer Rights under Consumer Protection Act 2019: Case Study” 7 IJSDR (2022).
