Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Air India Express Liable For Wrongfully Denying Boarding To IAS Officer And Family
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh, President, and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member, has held Air India Express guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for denying boarding to an IAS officer and his family despite their timely arrival at the boarding gate. The Commission observed that airlines cannot arbitrarily classify passengers as “No Show” passengers when they have completed check-in formalities and reached the boarding gate before the stipulated closure time.
Facts
The complainant, an Indian Administrative Service officer, along with his wife and minor son, had travelled to Dubai for a vacation between June 9 and June 17, 2024. The family booked return tickets from Dubai to Amritsar on Air India Express flight IX-192 through a travel agent by paying ₹18,420 per passenger.
According to the complaint, the family reached Dubai International Airport around two and a half hours before the scheduled departure at 08:50 AM. They completed all check-in formalities, checked in their baggage and received boarding passes indicating that the boarding gates would close at 08:25 AM. The complainants contended that they reached the boarding gate before the stipulated closure time, yet the airline's ground staff refused to permit them to board, claiming that boarding had already been completed, even though other passengers were allegedly still being allowed to board the aircraft.
The complainants stated that they were stranded at the airport and were compelled to purchase alternative tickets to India via Jaipur at an additional cost of ₹1,26,771. It was further claimed that the delayed arrival caused professional inconvenience to the first complainant, who could not resume his official duties on time. Aggrieved by the airline's conduct, the complainants approached the Consumer Commission seeking compensation and reimbursement of expenses.
Contentions of the Parties
Air India Express argued that the complainants had suppressed material facts and failed to report at the boarding gate within the prescribed timeline. According to the airline, the boarding gates had already been closed and the complainants were rightly treated as “No Show” passengers. The airline further relied upon its boarding records to contend that the last passenger had boarded before the complainants arrived at the gate.
The travel agent, Vidhata Consultancy, failed to appear despite service of notice and was proceeded against ex parte by the Commission.
Observations & Decision
The Commission observed that the documentary evidence placed on record, including the boarding passes and travel invoices, clearly established that the complainants had completed the required airport formalities and reached the boarding area. It held that the airline failed to provide any plausible justification for denying boarding to the complainants despite their timely presence at the gate.
The Commission further noted that because of the airline's conduct, the complainants were forced to incur substantial additional expenditure for alternative travel arrangements. It also took note of the fact that the original ticket amount paid for the Dubai-Amritsar journey had not been refunded by the airline.
Holding that the airline's conduct amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission concluded that the complainants had successfully proved negligence on the part of the airline.
The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay ₹1,26,771 to the complainants towards reimbursement of alternative travel expenses, subject to deduction of ₹55,260 if the said amount had already been refunded prior to disposal of the complaint, along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till realization. The Commission also awarded ₹15,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses.
Case Title: Veerendra Kumar Meena & Ors. v. Air India Express Limited & Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/44/CC/345/2024 / CC/345/2024
Advocates for the Complainants: Sh. Sahil Jain and Sh. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocates
Advocate for Opposite Party No.1: Sh. Daksh Prem Azad, Advocate