By Sanjay Raman Sinha
The crash of the ill-fated Air India 787-8 Dreamliner that extinguished 260 lives is not just a tragedy—it is a mystery still waiting to be unravelled. While families mourn and the nation reels, the incident has sparked complex legal scrutiny involving airline liability, manufacturer accountability, compensation law, and overdue reforms in India’s aviation regulatory framework.
An official probe has been initiated by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India, supported by a team from the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Parallelly, a parliamentary committee on transport is preparing to deliberate on urgent issues of civil aviation safety and aircraft maintenance. Government officials, airline executives, and Boeing representatives have been summoned for questioning, with high-stakes accountability on the line.
Tata Group, which owns Air India, has announced an interim relief of Rs 1 crore for each victim’s family. But legally, that may be just the beginning. Under Indian and international aviation law, liability and compensation depend on fault determination. Air India may face unlimited liability unless it proves the crash resulted from a third-party fault—most notably, a potential manufacturing defect in Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner aircraft.
India’s Carriage by Air Act, 1972, incorporates principles from the Warsaw Convention, Hague Protocol, and Montreal Convention, holding air carriers liable for passenger death or injury, as well as for loss or delay of baggage and cargo. Airlines can avoid liability only by proving they took all necessary precautions or that the incident was unavoidable.
Dr Vandana Singh, chairperson of the Aviation Cargo Federation of the aviation industry in India, explained to India Legal: “When a plane crash occurs, both the airline and the aircraft manufacturer can be held responsible. Under the Montreal Convention, airlines are strictly liable for compensation up to around Rs 1.85 crore per passenger—even if they weren’t at fault.”
If proven negligent—through poor maintenance, pilot error, or operational oversight—Air India could face additional compensation claims. Similarly, Boeing could face direct litigation or indemnity claims from insurers if a design flaw or defective component is found to have caused or contributed to the crash.
The Montreal Convention (1999)—to which India is a signatory—governs international passenger compensation. Its key tenets include:
• Strict no-fault liability up to approximately Rs 1.85 crore per passenger.
• Unlimited liability where negligence or omission by the airline or a third party is proven.
• Flexible jurisdiction, allowing claims to be filed in the passenger’s home country.
If Boeing is implicated, the crash could echo the global 737 MAX debacle, where the manufacturer paid over $2.5 billion in settlements. Under international law, Boeing can be sued for defects in design, manufacturing, or systems integration. Litigation could come from both insurers and individual victims’ families.
Many families may also receive compensation through life insurance, travel insurance, or card-linked accident policies. Overall, the crash is expected to result in claims worth Rs 4,000 crore—making it one of the largest aviation insurance events in India. Air India holds a $1.5 billion liability policy, reinsured in the London market. Total insurance payouts could reach $350 million, depending on the volume and jurisdiction of claims filed.
Insurers anticipate a significant uptick in airline coverage costs—by as much as 30percent—which could further impact India’s already cost-sensitive aviation sector.
The crash’s legal aftershocks are expected to reach courtrooms both within India and abroad. History warns that resolution will not come quickly. The 2010 Mangaluru crash, which claimed 158 lives, continues to see families battling for rightful compensation 15 years later. These delays underscore the inconsistencies and inefficiencies in Indian aviation law—particularly in harmonizing international liability standards.
As Dr Vandana Singh observes: “India’s aviation laws have improved over the years, but gaps still exist—especially in getting fair and timely compensation. While India follows the Montreal Convention, its implementation is patchy. Compensation doesn’t reflect current realities, and legal processes can drag on for years. There’s no clear framework for holding manufacturers accountable, especially foreign ones.” A dedicated aviation tribunal, she argues, is long overdue. Until then, families must navigate a slow and fragmented justice system while hoping for closure.
The Air India Dreamliner tragedy exposes not just weaknesses in safety oversight, but also a legal architecture ill-equipped to serve victims in a timely or effective manner. As investigations unfold and evidence emerges, one question looms large: who will be held accountable, and will justice come in time for those left behind?
UPGRADING AIRLINE SAFETY PROTOCOLS
In view of the concerns raised on airline security, India Legal spoke to RK Srivastava, former chairman, Airports Authority of India. He opined as follows for improved safety norms and protocol:
1. Integrate Ground Handlers in Emergency Planning: Role of ground handling agencies such as AISATS playing a vital role in airport operations to be further formalised in emergency preparedness and included in Airport Emergency Response Plans (AERPs).
2. Standardize Aircraft Turnaround Regulations: Introduce standardized SOPs for ramp safety, cabin servicing, refuelling, and cargo security, with digital logging and retention for a longer duration.
3. Enforce Cargo Screening Standards: Cargo handling remains a vulnerable area due to inconsistent screening procedures across private and public handlers. Mandate AI-enabled scanners, RFID tracking, and fire detection systems in cargo terminals.
4. Unified Aviation Incident Reporting System (UAIRS): Non-flight airport personnel such as cleaners, loaders, and ramp agents often encounter early safety anomalies and lack a secure mechanism to report them. Establish a protected, anonymous reporting channel for safety concerns.
5. Passenger Safety Empowerment: Passengers are often unaware of emergency procedures and protocols to be followed in crisis. Display multilingual safety videos, QR-coded brochures, and conduct mock evacuation drills; introduce a “Passenger Bill of Safety Rights.”
6. Real-Time Data Sharing: Require stakeholders to submit relevant data within a fixed hours of an incident for course correction.
7. Mental Health Support: Enact guidelines for psychological first aid and post-incident counselling for aviation personnel.
8. Smart Technology Adoption: Mandate phased adoption of AI surveillance, predictive maintenance, and drone-based perimeter control.
9. Accountability of Non-Aviation Stakeholders: Public and non-public bodies, contractors, and third-party service providers operating near airports sometimes undertake activities—such as constructions or infrastructure interference that pose risks to aircraft safety. This often may be inadvertently. Aircraft Act may therefore be made more encompassed to define and integrate the role of non-aviation entities for safety and securities.
10. Harmonize ICAO Annex Norms: India should fast-track integrating ICAO’s critical annexes (Annex 14, 19, and 9) into domestic law to enhance regulatory clarity and enforcement for improving India’s preparedness further for emergency response, safety audits, and global airworthiness compliance.
AIR CRASH JURISPRUDENCE: KEY LEGAL PRECEDENTS IN INDIA
• Indian Airlines Flight 113 (1988): Gujarat High Court allowed enhanced fault-based compensation.
• Air India Express crashes (2010 and 2020): Courts upheld Montreal Convention’s no-fault payouts; enabled tort-based civil claims.
• Supreme Court rulings: Recognize coexistence of mandatory SDR payouts and tort-based suits, strengthening passenger compensation rights.