Vijay Rupani’s daughter urges Air India to drop compensation waiver requirement
In an email to Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran, who also heads Air India, Radhika urged the airline to stop such efforts before the investigation is completed.
“The investigation is not yet complete, but the document requires families to permanently waive current and future claims before all the facts are known. We deserve more than compensation. We deserve answers. We deserve transparency and, above all, closure,” Mishra wrote in the email reviewed by ET.
He asked Air India to ensure that no family feels pressured to choose between immediate financial support and the pursuit of the truth.
Two other relatives of the victims said they were asked to sign a similar document as a condition of receiving compensation. ET has reviewed a copy of the undertaking, which states that by agreeing to its terms, the families will “irrevocably and forever waive” the right to sue or pursue claims against Air India and other stakeholders, including aircraft maker Boeing, engine maker General Electric, Honeywell, Ahmedabad Airport and the Union of India.
Even if future investigations reveal new findings or the cause of the accident is determined, the agreement will remain binding and enforceable regardless of country or jurisdiction.
Air India said there was no deadline for the families to accept the final compensation offer and they were free to wait for the AAIB report. It said the settlement document followed standard industry practices and was intended to provide legal certainty for compensation settlements, not to shield third parties from liability. The airline paid interim compensation of ₹25 lakh per victim. Tata Group is also providing ex-gratia payment of ₹1 crore to each victim’s family. Under the Montreal Convention, the airline is obliged to pay 151,880 special drawing rights (SDR) per deceased passenger; which is around 1.9 crore at current exchange rates. Lawyers handling victim compensation cases note that liability can increase if negligence is proven and will also depend on the laws of the jurisdiction in which the lawsuits are filed.
In the preliminary report prepared by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, which investigated the Boeing 787 crash, it was stated that the cause of the accident was manual intervention. Seconds after takeoff, the fuel control switches on both engines were found to briefly switch from the “start” position to the “cut off” position, cutting off the fuel supply and causing a loss of power.
