Air India Plane Crash: Untangling Civil and Legal Liabilities

Air India Plane Crash: Untangling Liability, Compensation, and Legal Challenges

When a lone man staggered out of a complex of buildings on which an Air India plane crashed before blowing up just outside Ahmedabad airport in June this year , it was nothing short of a miracle. He was filmed emerging from the crash site, visibly dazed. And when he spoke his first words, they sounded incoherent. Vishwaskumar Ramesh, a British national, was the sole survivor of the crash in which over 260 people perished in one of the worst aviation crashes in history. 

A little over three months after that tragic day, family members of four of the deceased passengers filed a lawsuit in the US on September 16, suing the plane manufacturer, Boeing, and aircraft component maker, Honeywell, for negligence.  

What is puzzling is that even though international aviation safety agencies and the airline pursued their own investigations, a preliminary report in July 2025 said that the plane may have crashed after fuel to the engines was cut off seconds after it took off. A fuller investigation report is expected around June 2026. 

Although rare, aviation accidents cause substantial suffering, often leading to massive loss of life and property, while raising complex questions regarding legal liability. The June 12 crash raises significant questions about determining legal liability, compensation, and other concerns relating to systemic challenges. 

Determining liability in such cases also involves a complex analysis of international aviation treaties, domestic legislation, and tort and criminal law principles by categorising them into civil, criminal, and third-party liability.  

India is a party to several international conventions that govern airline liability for passenger injury and death. The most significant is the Montreal Convention, 1999, which India incorporated through the Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act, 2009, establishing a tier liability (two-level framework for compensating passengers), including strict liability (no-fault), under which the airline is automatically held responsible for damages without requiring evidence of negligence.  

On the other hand, the airline may escape liability by proving either that the damage was not due to its negligence or wrongful act, or that the damage was solely caused by a third party during the Air India plane crash. The 1999 Convention also provides multiple grounds for filing claims, including the country of departure, destination, or domicile of the airline, and prescribes a two-year limitation period.  

Air India Plane Crash: Civil and Legal Liability

Historically, the Warsaw Convention, 1929, governed international carriage by air. While largely superseded, it may still apply in rare cases governed by older contractual arrangements. 

Generally, in the case of an aviation disaster, civil liability is at the core of legal responsibility. For passengers, the Montreal-based legal responsibility puts two forms of compensation in place:no-fault compensation and additional damages contingent on proving negligence.  

In India, courts have consistently applied these principles, awarding higher amounts where families establish pecuniary losses beyond the no-fault threshold in which a passenger or her family is entitled to automatically without proving negligence. Claims may also proceed under consumer protection laws or Tort laws. Victims often seek foreign jurisdictions (such as the UK or the US) due to the availability of more favourable compensation and procedural remedies.  

However, the volume of compensation for non-monetary losses such as emotional distress, pain and suffering varies across jurisdictions, reflecting a lack of uniform valuation standards. For this reason, the family members of the AI 171 crash victims are pursuing lawsuits inthe US andIndia.  

US courts have typically been more generous with damage awards. Still, they require establishing a foundation for jurisdiction, which may include the US being the place of manufacturing and principal place of business for Boeing, and the resultant crash being attributed to the manufacturing or design defects.  

Conflicts of law, choice of forum and enforceability of foreign judgements and awards present considerable procedural complexity and delay. The delay is on account of the time taken for a claimant to receive compensation due to the procedural and legal hurdles. This was evidenced in the 2019 case involving State Bank of India and Jet Airways.

Air India Plane Crash: Deterrence Against Negligence

While civil liability ensures monetary compensation, criminal liabilityserves as a deterrent against negligence. Criminal prosecution is rare in aviation disasters, given that proving gross negligence or wilful misconduct is challenging. 

However, liability may arise if investigations reveal systemic disregard for safety, including a pattern of safety violations, concealment of maintenance records or negligent conduct by crew members. Such negligence was apparent in the case of United States v. The Boeing Company.  Systemic issues such asmaintenance lapses, regulatory oversight failures and rest and simulator training infractions by Air India are already under scrutiny. 

The parties generally found liable include airline management for ignoring safety protocols, pilots for recklessness or violation of standard operating procedures, and, in exceptional cases, regulatory officials for systemic regulatory violations. 

However, Indian courts have generally avoided imposing criminal sanctions, emphasising that most airline crashes arise due to mechanical or weather-related reasons rather than intentional wrongdoing. 

In the Air India Express Flight 1344 crash in Kozhikode in 2020, where the Directorate General of Civil Aviation attributed the mishap to pilot misjudgement during adverse weather conditions, victims’ families pursued claims under the Montreal framework. Some of them also filed consumer court petitions for enhanced compensation. Thus, no criminal prosecution was initiated. 

An aviation crash often involves multiple stakeholders, and liability may also extend beyond the airline. For example, Boeing may face product liability claims if the crash was caused by manufacturing defects, as in the case of Air India plane crash. 

Boeing has faced several legal and reputationalchallenges in recent years, after similar cases involving its aircraft worldwide, increasing the potential for exemplary damages to be awarded in the present case if they are held liable.  

Maintenance contractors can also be held liable if poor maintenance or the use of defective components resulted in the accident. Likewise, air traffic control authorities may face liability if issues in communication, mismanagement of flight paths, or inadequate weather advisories are established.  

This would implicate the Airports Authority of India (AAI) under tort principles in India. In India, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, a Ministry of Civil Aviation regulatory body, under the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017, is responsible for conducting detailed inquiries into the causes of accidents, ensuring compliance with safety regulations and overseeing the investigation reports. This is crucial in establishing negligence and guiding compensation claims, despite not being binding on the court.  

The legal liability for the Air India plane crash is primarily governed by the Montreal Convention and its incorporation into Indian law, which ensures reasonable compensation to victims under a strict liability regime. However, for damages beyond the no-fault criteria, establishing negligence remains crucial. 

Criminal liability and third-party accountability remain underdeveloped in India or elsewhere too? due to the investigative, regulatory and jurisdictional challenges. The need of the hour is to strengthen domestic legal frameworks and secure justice for victims to ensure public confidence in India’s aviation safety regime. 

The June 12 Air India plane crash has led to many concurrent investigations, cross-border litigation, conflicts of law and the challenge of reconciling diverse interests such as victim compensation, systemic safety improvement, corporate accountability and general public trust and confidence in air travel.  

The final decision to fix legal liability, including compensation, may depend on the findings of the technical investigation, the legal claims of bereaved families and the responsiveness of regulators and courts across jurisdictions. 

Abhinav Mehrotra is Associate Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana.

Amit Upadhyay is Associate Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana.

Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.