Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
For 42 families in Mangaluru, the grief of losing loved ones in a deadly aviation disaster has been compounded by a 15-year legal nightmare.
When Air India Express Flight IX-812 plunged into a valley after overshooting Mangaluru’s tabletop runway on May 22, 2010, it claimed 158 lives and left only eight survivors. Now, a decade and a half later, dozens of bereaved families remain locked in court battles, fighting an airline they say has failed to provide adequate compensation for their devastating losses.
Families say they were eligible for Rs 75 lakh as fixed compensation under international aviation norms, but this amount has not been paid. Instead, the final compensation offers varied widely, often based on the victims’ income or age. Abdul Salam, a native of Kasargod who lost his son, was offered settlement far lower than what he believes is legally due. He was offered Rs 35 lakh with the condition that if he did not accept this amount, he could go to court.
Under pressure and without full legal understanding, many others like Abdul Salam accepted the measly compensation.
Narayanan Killingom, president of the Mangalore Air Crash Victims’ Families Association, said compensations ranged from Rs 25 lakh for children to Rs 60 lakh for adults. “All families eventually received the compensation, but the petition for increased compensation, approximately Rs 7.7 crore per victim, is still pending in the Supreme Court,” he said.
The association is of the view that families of all victims were eligible for Rs 75 lakh as fixed compensation, without it being subject to income-based calculation.
In the immediate aftermath of the crash, Air India Express Express had announced interim compensation of Rs 10 lakh for adult passengers, Rs 5 lakh for passengers below the age of 12, and Rs 2 lakh for every injured passenger. “This is subject to execution of appropriate documentation. This interim compensation will be taken into account and adjusted against the final compensation to be assessed,” the airline had said.
But this was not adhered to, according to Advocate Abdul Jaleel, who is representing several petitioners in the Supreme Court. He said families received only Rs 2 lakh in case of death and Rs 50,000 for injured passengers as interim compensation. During negotiation meetings in Mangaluru in 2011, families were asked to furnish details such as age, occupation, and financial status of the deceased.
After attempts to resolve this through negotiations failed, 33 families filed writ petitions in the Kerala High Court claiming the compensation was inadequate and failed to meet the legal mandate. Justice Ramachandra Menon ruled in favour of the victims, directing the airline to provide just and fair compensation. However, the ruling was later overturned by a division bench.
Abdul Jaleel, said, “For international carriers, the provisions of the Montreal Convention apply, particularly those relating to no-fault liability. In such cases, where there is death or injury to passengers, the liability is presumed to lie with the airline, not the passenger. This is true irrespective of the passenger’s age or identity, even if the victim is a child,” he said.
The Montreal Convention
The Montreal Convention of 1999 was ratified by India and incorporated into national law through the Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act, 2009. The Convention outlines a two-tier liability system: the first tier mandates a fixed compensation of 100,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR), approximately Rs 75 lakh in 2011, payable automatically to the family of every deceased passenger without the need to prove fault.
The second tier allows additional compensation, but only if negligence by the airline is proven, and is calculated based on income, dependents, age, and future earning potential. The Court of Inquiry (CoI) report had stated that the Mangaluru crash was caused by pilot error.
Triveni Kodkany, married to Mahendra Kodkany who died in the crash, pursued increased damages for the death of her husband. Initially, she was awarded Rs 7.35 crore by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). Triveni then appealed to the Supreme Court seeking a higher amount based on her husband’s earning potential and future prospects.
In a 2020 judgment, the Supreme Court increased the compensation to Rs 7.64 crore with 9% interest from the date of filing, recognising that the airline bore strict liability under the Montreal Convention. The Court said that compensation in aviation accidents must reflect not just immediate loss, but also long-term financial impact on dependents.
“He was the General Manager of a company in the Middle East and had a salary of Rs 3.5 lakh per month. However, this compensation was determined under the Motor Vehicles Act, not the Montreal Convention,” Jaleel said.
Beyond the no-fault liability, compensation must also include sustained damage, which refers to losses such as pain and suffering, loss of future income for dependents, and other related damages, he said. “This calculation should not be based on the Motor Vehicles Act, but instead must adhere to the Montreal Convention and applicable aviation accident compensation principles,” he added.
Jaleel said the compensation must consider not only local income but also overseas assets and entitlements, such as vehicles, business interests, insurance, and property, particularly because many victims were Non-Resident Indians (NRIs). “In such fatal incidents, the calculation must account for all sources of income lost by the victim’s death,” he said. Under the Aircraft Act, Schedule 3 (1972), compensation is supposed to reflect these considerations.
After a Division Bench overturned Justice Ramachandra Menon’s order in favour of the victims’ families, two civil appeals were filed in the Supreme Court in 2011 by Abdul Salam and Patricia D’Souza. However, when Air India Express delayed filing its counter-affidavit for nearly 14 years, the petitioners approached a larger legal team. “Two months ago, Air India Express finally filed its counter, after a delay of 14 years. This delay is inhumane,” said Jaleel.
‘Compensation processes by airlines inconsistent’
The petitioners argue that their claims for increased compensation, based on both no-fault liability and sustained damage under the Montreal Convention, are not being adequately addressed. Jaleel said, “When you add together sustained damage, no-fault liability, and the minimum compensation stipulated under the Montreal Convention, the amount typically ranges from Rs 2 crore to Rs 10 crore or more, depending on the status and earning capacity of the passenger.”
Even as court battles were being fought, another fatal crash occurred in Kozhikode in 2020 involving the same airline. In that case, one of the injured passengers received Rs 5 crore, while many families of deceased passengers received less than Rs 2 crore. Multiple cases related to the Kozhikode crash, 65 in total, are also pending before the Supreme Court.
“The central argument,” said Jaleel, “is that the compensation awarded in both crashes does not align with the provisions of Sustained Damage and No-Fault Liability under the Montreal Convention, and therefore is not fair or just.”
He also raised concerns about inconsistencies in the compensation process. “In the recent Ahmedabad crash, each victim’s family was offered a flat compensation of Rs 1.25 crore. But on what basis? What method of calculation was used? Was it under the Montreal Convention or the Motor Vehicles Act?” he asked.
Today, two civil appeals related to the Mangaluru crash remain before the Supreme Court, while 33 related cases are still pending in the Kerala High Court. For the families, it is not only about the money, it is about justice, and accountability. “Greater awareness is essential to ensure victims and their families are not denied their rightful compensation,” said Jaleel.