Ernakulam Consumer Commission Holds Qatar Airways Liable For Denying Boarding On Return Journey
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., held Qatar Airways guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for allowing a family to travel from Italy to India after verifying their travel documents, but subsequently refusing to permit their minor children to complete the...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., held Qatar Airways guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for allowing a family to travel from Italy to India after verifying their travel documents, but subsequently refusing to permit their minor children to complete the return journey on the very same documents.
Brief Facts
The complainants, Roshan Jose and his two minor sons, Ron Roshan and Reyn Roshan, booked round-trip tickets with Qatar Airways to travel from Venice to Kochi and back. Before the onward journey, the airline verified and accepted the family's travel documents, issued boarding passes, and allowed them to travel from Venice to Doha and thereafter to Kochi without raising any objection.
When the family reported for the return journey from Kochi to Venice on 3 December 2018, the airline kept them waiting for nearly two and a half hours during document verification. Shortly before departure, the airline denied boarding to the second complainant, Ron Roshan, on the ground that he did not possess an independent visa. Roshan, his wife Vinaya, and their infant son Reyn Roshan were, however, permitted to board the flight from Kochi to Doha after boarding passes had been issued for the entire journey up to Venice.
Upon reaching Doha, the airline again subjected the family to document verification and this time refused to allow the infant, Reyn Roshan, to board the connecting flight to Venice despite having already accepted the same travel documents and issued him a boarding pass at Kochi.
As Roshan's wife was required to resume work in Italy, she travelled alone to Venice while Roshan was compelled to return to Kochi with the infant. He was later required to incur additional expenses to separately take both children back to Italy.
Alleging that the airline's inconsistent conduct caused severe mental agony, financial loss, and disruption to the family, the complainants approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Arguments by Qatar Airways
Qatar Airways contended that it was the sole responsibility of passengers to ensure that they possessed valid visas and travel documents required for international travel. It submitted that the second and third complainants did not possess the requisite independent travel documents to enter Italy and that boarding was denied pursuant to instructions received from the immigration authorities at Venice and Doha. The airline further stated that its Doha team had sought an exceptional "OK to Board" clearance from the immigration authorities in Venice, but the request was declined. Relying on Article 9 of its General Conditions of Carriage and established international aviation practice, it argued that it was entitled to refuse carriage to passengers who lacked valid travel documents and therefore denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
Observations & Decision
The Commission observed that Qatar Airways had itself verified and accepted the travel documents before permitting the complainants to travel from Venice to Kochi. It held that if the travel documents were genuinely insufficient, the airline ought not to have permitted the family to undertake the onward journey in the first place. Likewise, after issuing boarding passes and allowing the infant to travel from Kochi to Doha on the return journey, the airline could not arbitrarily refuse him permission to board the connecting flight to Venice on the basis of the very same documents.
The Commission held that the airline's inconsistent conduct in accepting and later rejecting identical travel documents was wholly unjustified and amounted to a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It further observed that the airline's actions compelled the parents to leave their young children behind in India, caused immense mental agony, emotional trauma, financial hardship, and forced the family to undertake multiple additional journeys at their own expense.
Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed Qatar Airways to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainants and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint in the event of default in payment within 45 days.
Case Title: Roshan Jose & Ors v. Qatar Airways
Case Number: C.C. No.143/2019