Air India Held Liable For Wrongful Denial Of Boarding, Directed To Compensate
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member), has held Air India liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully denying boarding to two passengers despite valid visas, boarding passes and travel clearances, and has directed the airline to refund the ticket amount and compensate...
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member), has held Air India liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully denying boarding to two passengers despite valid visas, boarding passes and travel clearances, and has directed the airline to refund the ticket amount and compensate the complainants for the harassment and financial loss caused.
Facts and Background of the Case
The complainants, Mr. Rishabh Sharda and Mr. Akshit Bansal, had booked confirmed tickets on Air India Flight AI-143 from New Delhi to Paris scheduled for 27.07.2022. They held valid Type-C Schengen Tourist Visas, had completed all required travel documentation, obtained their boarding passes, checked in their luggage, and also cleared immigration, which verified their passport, visa, and travel plans.
Despite fulfilling all formalities, the complainants were stopped at the boarding gate moments before boarding. They were informed verbally that they were offloaded on the grounds of being a “suspected profile” and allegedly on the direction of an Airline Liaison Officer (ALO) of the Embassy of Spain. However, the complainants maintain that no such officer ever met or interacted with them during their 8-hour ordeal at the airport. After persistent requests, they were handed a slip containing remarks such as “OFLD BY ALO MR MUELLER SUSPECTED PROFILE”. Their checked-in luggage was returned late in the evening.
The complainants immediately visited the Embassy of Spain, where officials clarified that no restriction or bar had been issued against them. The Embassy also issued a written confirmation stating that both complainants held valid visas from 27.07.2022 to 09.09.2022, contradicting Air India's justification for offloading them.
Due to the offloading, the complainants were forced to miss their scheduled travel connections, including expensive Tomorrowland Music Festival tickets, train bookings from Paris to Brussels, and hotel reservations, causing substantial financial loss. They also incurred fresh expenses for rebooking their travel for 29.07.2022, for which Air India again charged them full fare. The complainants assert that the conduct of the airline staff was rude, dismissive, and lacking any justification, amounting to harassment and humiliation.
Having served a legal notice that went unanswered, the complainants approached the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking reimbursement of ticket costs, compensation for losses, mental agony, and litigation expenses.
Contentions of the Complainants:
The complainants argue that Air India wrongfully denied them boarding despite having valid visas, boarding passes, and all clearances. They submit that the airline's claim of instructions from an Airline Liaison Officer (ALO) of the Embassy of Spain is false, as no ALO ever met them, and the Embassy later confirmed that no such restriction existed. They claim they suffered humiliation, trauma, and significant financial loss, including wasted festival tickets, hotel bookings, and fresh flight charges. They allege that Air India acted arbitrarily and negligently, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Contentions of the Air India:
Air India contends that the complainants were denied boarding because they allegedly failed to present mandatory travel documents, specifically hotel booking proof for Europe. The airline states that it is required to follow travel advisories and acted on the ALO's recommendation to offload the complainants, as their profile was “suspected.” Air India argues that it acted lawfully and within its rights, and therefore no deficiency in service occurred, rendering the complaint baseless.
Observation and decision of the Commission:
The Commission found that Air India's justification for denying boarding—lack of hotel booking proof—was unsupported, as no evidence was produced to show any instruction from the Airline Liaison Officer of the Embassy of Spain. In fact, the Embassy later confirmed that it had issued no such direction. The Commission noted the inconsistency in Air India refusing boarding on 27.07.2022 but allowing the complainants to fly on 29.07.2022 without any new documents, which invalidated the airline's defence. Holding that the denial of boarding caused unnecessary harassment, humiliation, and financial loss, the Commission concluded that Air India was deficient in service.
Accordingly, Air India was directed to refund the ticket amount for 27.07.2022, pay ₹1,00,000/- each to the complainants as compensation, and ₹50,000/- as litigation costs. Failure to pay within four weeks would attract 9% interest from the filing date until realization.
Case Title: Rishabh Sharda & Anr. vs. Air India Ltd.
Case No.: CC-113/2023