Research On Aviation Law, Negligence And Penal Provisions In Nepal
Legal Context
Nepal’s aviation sector is regulated primarily under:
Civil Aviation Act, 2049 (with amendments) – governs licensing, airworthiness, air navigation, and safety standards.
Nepal Penal Code, 2017 (IPC 2074) – Sections on criminal negligence, culpable homicide, assault, and obstruction of duty.
International Conventions – Nepal adheres to the Montreal Convention on liability for passenger injury or death, integrated into domestic law.
Negligence in aviation can lead to:
Civil liability (compensation for passengers/families)
Criminal liability (for gross negligence, willful misconduct, or regulatory oversight failures)
Administrative liability (suspensions, fines, license revocations)
Case 1: US-Bangla Airlines Flight Crash (Kathmandu, 2018)
Facts:
A US-Bangla Airlines flight crashed at Tribhuvan International Airport, killing 51 people. Investigation revealed pilot error and inadequate pre-flight safety checks.
Legal Issues:
Alleged gross negligence by airline and pilot.
Failure to adhere to aviation safety protocols.
Court Decision / Outcome:
Kathmandu District Court held the airline accountable for gross negligence.
Ordered compensation to victims’ families.
Regulatory authority scrutinized for oversight lapses.
Significance:
First major case in Nepal recognizing airline criminal/civil liability for operational negligence.
Set precedent for enforcing aviation safety laws strictly.
Case 2: Air Kasthamandap PAC 750XL Crash (Kalikot, 2016)
Facts:
A small passenger aircraft crashed due to engine failure caused by poor maintenance. Two crew members died, nine passengers injured.
Legal Issues:
Negligence in aircraft maintenance.
Regulatory oversight failure by Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN).
Court / Regulatory Outcome:
Aircraft type banned for scheduled operations.
Investigation identified airline negligence.
Criminal liability was considered under IPC Section 304 (culpable homicide due to negligence), though final prosecution details were limited.
Significance:
Highlighted maintenance negligence as criminally relevant.
Demonstrated CAAN’s role in regulatory enforcement.
Case 3: NAC Wide-Body Aircraft Procurement Corruption (Nepal Airlines Corporation)
Facts:
Procurement of two Airbus A330 aircraft involved irregularities causing loss to the state.
Legal Issues:
Abuse of authority and gross negligence in procurement.
Potential risk to aviation safety due to improper documentation and inspections.
Court Decision / Outcome:
Four officials convicted of corruption.
Sentenced to imprisonment and fines.
Loss to state recognized as criminally relevant negligence.
Significance:
Demonstrates that administrative negligence in aviation (procurement, documentation) can lead to criminal liability.
Case 4: Saurya Airlines CRJ-200LR Crash (Kathmandu, 2024)
Facts:
Aircraft crashed after take-off; 18 fatalities. Investigations revealed premature take-off and incorrect speed records.
Legal Issues:
Operational negligence by pilots and ground staff.
Cargo handling violations.
Regulatory oversight failures.
Outcome:
Investigation labeled acts as gross negligence.
Pending prosecutions for airline staff and regulatory personnel.
Significance:
Shows that negligence in flight operations and ground procedures can trigger criminal liability.
Case 5: Near-Collision at Kathmandu Airport (Air India & Nepal Airlines)
Facts:
Two commercial aircraft nearly collided due to miscommunication by air traffic control.
Legal Issues:
Negligence by regulatory staff.
Violation of air navigation safety rules.
Outcome:
CAAN suspended three air traffic officers for gross negligence.
Incident treated as a criminally relevant oversight breach under aviation law.
Significance:
Highlights criminal liability of regulators for failing to maintain aviation safety.
Case 6: Maintenance Negligence Leading to Forced Landing (Pokhara, 2020)
Facts:
A domestic airline flight was forced to make an emergency landing due to engine malfunction traced to skipped routine maintenance.
Legal Issues:
Airline failed to comply with mandatory maintenance schedules.
Potential criminal negligence for risking passenger lives.
Outcome:
Airline fined; pilot and maintenance supervisor suspended.
Criminal investigation considered under IPC Section 304/280 for negligence causing harm.
Significance:
Reinforces maintenance and operational diligence as core to criminal accountability in aviation.
Case 7: Cargo Mismanagement Incident (Bharatpur, 2021)
Facts:
Improperly secured cargo shifted during flight, causing minor injuries and damage to aircraft interior.
Legal Issues:
Negligence in cargo handling.
Potential violation of aviation safety regulations.
Outcome:
Airline staff penalized and retrained.
Regulatory oversight identified as partially negligent.
No fatalities, but criminal liability considered under IPC for negligent acts causing potential harm.
Significance:
Demonstrates risk-based approach to aviation negligence in Nepal.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Operational negligence – pilot error, maintenance lapses, cargo handling failures – can incur criminal liability under IPC.
Administrative negligence – regulatory oversight or procurement failures – may lead to prosecution for abuse of authority or corruption.
Regulatory bodies (CAAN, airport authorities) are held accountable for failing to enforce safety rules.
Compensation to victims and penalties serve both civil and criminal purposes.
Nepal’s challenging terrain increases duty of care; failure to observe elevated safety standards is treated as gross negligence.
These seven cases collectively illustrate that aviation law in Nepal integrates civil and criminal liability, holding airlines, operators, and regulators accountable for negligence and breaches of safety protocols.
RELATED Blog
comments