The tragic crash of Air India Flight AI171 near Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025, which resulted in 275 fatalities, has brought India face-to-face with the complex legal architecture governing aviation disasters. For the grieving families, the law offers both immediate recourse and long-term remedies if properly navigated. This article evaluates the legal entitlements of the victims’ families, the international conventions that regulate such incidents, the role of Special Drawing Rights (SDR), and the basis upon which Tata Group, which owns Air India, announced an interim payment of ₹1 crore per deceased passenger.
International framework: The Montreal Convention, 1999
Since Air India Flight AI171 was operating on an international route from Ahmedabad to London, the legal liability of the airline is principally governed by the Montreal Convention of 1999. India, being a signatory to the Convention, has incorporated it into domestic law through the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The Montreal Convention establishes a dual framework of liability:
First, the Convention imposes strict liability on the carrier up to a limit of 113,100 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) per passenger, which operates automatically upon proof of death or injury. Beyond this limit, the carrier may still be held liable if negligence, fault, or wrongful act is established.
The SDR is not a currency but a composite unit of value maintained by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Its daily value is derived from a basket of major world currencies. As on June 14, 2025, one SDR is approximately equivalent to ₹110. Therefore, the strict liability amount of 113,100 SDR converts to approximately ₹1.24 crore per deceased passenger. This figure fluctuates marginally with daily exchange rate adjustments.
Why Tata Group announced ₹1 crore
In the immediate aftermath of the crash, Tata Group, which owns Air India, publicly declared that an amount of ₹1 crore would be paid to each deceased passenger’s family as interim compensation. This gesture was announced without prejudice to the legal rights of the victims’ families and without any admission of fault.
The ₹1 crore figure appears to serve three tactical purposes. Firstly, it provides swift financial assistance to the grieving families for funeral expenses, temporary financial support, and related costs. Secondly, it limits immediate financial exposure for Air India while comprehensive investigations are still ongoing. Thirdly, it creates an interim baseline which does not preclude the families from pursuing their full legal entitlements under the Montreal Convention.
Legally speaking, the ₹1 crore payment is an ex-gratia amount. It neither satisfies nor extinguishes the airline’s statutory obligation to compensate families up to the full SDR limit. Therefore, each family retains the right to claim additional amounts up to the 113,100 SDR ceiling and even beyond if negligence can be proven through evidence.
Applicable Indian statutes
Apart from the Montreal Convention, several Indian laws may simultaneously come into play.
These include:
● The Carriage by Air Act, 1972 which enforces the Convention domestically.
● The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, permitting claims for pecuniary loss suffered by dependents.
● The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which allows families to allege deficiency in service.
● The Indian Contract Act, 1872, applicable in contractual breaches connected to ticketing and passenger obligations.
● The law of torts, for possible product liability claims against manufacturers such as Boeing or engine suppliers like General Electric.
The legal claim structure for families
For families intending to pursue full and fair compensation, a structured legal claim becomes essential. The following framework outlines the path they must follow:
1. Cause title: Claims may be filed before appropriate civil courts or consumer commissions, identifying Air India, Tata Sons, the Director General of Civil Aviation, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Boeing, General Electric, and other potentially responsible parties.
2. Jurisdiction: Since the crash occurred within Indian territory on an international flight, both international and domestic laws apply concurrently.
3. Legal representatives: The claims must be filed by legal heirs, successors, or court-appointed representatives of the deceased, supported by succession certificates or letters of administration.
4. Reliefs claimed: These include:
● Strict liability compensation of approximately ₹1.24 crore (113,100 SDR).
● Additional damages if negligence, mechanical failure, or human error can be proven.
● Pecuniary losses for loss of income, dependency, and consortium.
● Funeral expenses and mental anguish.
● Legal costs and interest.
5. Documentary proof: Essential documents include death certificates, proof of relationship, income statements of the deceased, flight tickets, investigative reports from DGCA, AAIB, and NTSB, and copies of the ex-gratia payment orders.
6. Limitation periods: Under the Montreal Convention, the legal claim must be initiated within two years from the date the aircraft was scheduled to arrive or actually arrived, whichever is later.
Investigative reports: The decisive factor
The final reports from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and foreign bodies such as the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) will have a substantial bearing on the extent of liability. Preliminary findings suggest potential failures in the aircraft’s flap deployment and gear retraction mechanisms, opening the possibility of negligence claims against both Air India and its suppliers.
The legal road ahead
The legal representatives of the victims must carefully preserve their right to full compensation. Acceptance of Tata Group’s ₹1 crore offer should not deter them from filing comprehensive legal claims that reflect the full extent of both statutory liability and fault-based damages. In doing so, they should pursue claims under both the Montreal Convention and Indian statutory law, ensuring that no legal head of compensation is inadvertently waived.
