Ernakulam Consumer Commission Holds Jet Airways Liable For Denying Boarding To Minor, Calls Act “Sadistic Pleasure”

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising comprising Presi-dent D.B. Binu, and Members Ramachandran V. and Sreevidhia T.N , has held Jet Airways (India) Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for refusing boarding to a minor child on baseless grounds. The Commission rejected the airline's plea of non-service of notice, holding that Jet Airways had full knowledge of the proceedings, which amounted to deemed service.

Brief Facts

The complainant, Thomas Joseph, had booked three confirmed air tickets with Jet Airways for travel from Cochin to Doha on 27-07-2013. At the boarding counter, the airline's counter supervi-sor refused to issue a boarding pass to the complainant's minor son on the ground that the child's valid visa was stamped on an old passport.

Despite the complainant producing both the old passport containing the valid visa and the renewed passport, boarding was denied. As a result, the entire family was compelled to cancel the journey. The complainant subsequently purchased fresh tickets with Emirates Airlines and completed the journey on 28-07-2013.

The complainant sought reimbursement of the additional amount spent on the Emirates tickets and compensation for deficiency in service. Jet Airways justified the denial by relying on an alleged circular from the emigration department requiring existing visas to be transferred to renewed pass-ports.

Aggrieved, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, alleging deficiency in service. As the opposite party failed to appear and file its writ-ten version, the complaint was initially allowed ex parte.

Jet Airways challenged the order before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commis-sion, contending that it had not received notice from the District Forum. The State Commission al-lowed the appeal, set aside the order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after grant-ing the opposite party an opportunity to file its version and adduce evidence.

Despite the remand, Jet Airways failed to file its written version or adduce any evidence.

Contentions of Jet Airways

Jet Airways contended that the denial of boarding was in compliance with a departmental circular requiring all visas to be transferred to a passenger's renewed passport. It was argued that permit-ting travel without such transfer could have resulted in deportation. The airline also challenged the proceedings on the grounds of non-service of notice and improper impleadment.

Observations & Decision of the Commission

The District Consumer Commission held that the refusal to issue a boarding pass despite produc-tion of both the old and renewed passports was wholly unjustified. The Commission found that the alleged emigration circular relied upon by the airline was unsupported by any competent authority and termed it baseless.

The Commission also noted non-uniform application of rules, observing that another passenger was permitted to travel under similar circumstances. It further remarked that the conduct of the ground staff in denying boarding to a child of tender age reflected a “reflection of enjoyment of sadistic pleasure.”

Rejecting the plea of non-service of notice, the Commission held that Jet Airways had appeared before the State Commission using the same address and was fully aware of the remand proceed-ings. Its failure to participate thereafter was held to be a purposeful omission amounting to admis-sion of the complainant's case.

Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed Jet Airways to:

• Reimburse ₹33,000 towards the cost of tickets purchased with Emirates Airlines, with 9% interest from 27-07-2013 till the date of payment

• Pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony and suffering

• Pay ₹5,000 as costs

Case Title: Thomas Joseph v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

Case No.: CC No. DC/555/CC/324/2015

Click Here To Read/Download Order