The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore, comprising President Thiru. R. Thangavel and Member Thiru. P. Marimuthu, has held Air Arabia liable for deficiency in service for arbitrarily denying boarding to a passenger on the ground that his passport was allegedly "not machine readable." The Commission observed that the airline failed to establish any valid basis for refusing boarding, particularly when the complainant travelled to the UAE on the very same day using the same passport through another airline and was cleared by the immigration authorities.

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant, Mr. Manikandan Nagaraj, booked a confirmed Air Arabia ticket (Flight No. G9411) to travel from Coimbatore to Sharjah on 12-06-2025. When he reported for boarding, the airline's staff denied him boarding on the ground that his passport was allegedly "not machine readable". The complainant contended that the reason was factually incorrect as he had travelled to China using the same passport a month earlier without any objection. Owing to urgent commitments, he booked another flight from Kochi to Dubai on the same day and completed his journey using the very same passport, which was accepted by both the airline and the UAE immigration authorities.

The complainant alleged that Air Arabia had arbitrarily denied him boarding despite his possession of a valid passport, thereby causing him financial loss, mental agony and disruption to his travel plans. He contended that the airline had wrongly relied on Annex 9 of the Chicago Convention, which does not empower airlines to deny boarding to passengers holding valid passports. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking refund of the ticket amount, reimbursement of expenses, compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial loss.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

Although Air Arabia was proceeded ex parte before the Commission, the airline, in its reply notice, contended that the complainant was denied boarding in accordance with UAE immigration guidelines as his passport was allegedly not machine readable. It relied on Annex 9 of the Chicago Convention and Article 10.1.2 of its Conditions of Carriage, asserting that it was entitled to refuse carriage to ensure compliance with applicable immigration and regulatory requirements.

Observation and Decision of the Commission

The Commission observed that Air Arabia had failed to establish any valid justification for denying boarding to the complainant. It noted that the complainant travelled to the UAE on the very same day using the same passport through another airline and was cleared by the UAE immigration authorities, demonstrating that the passport was valid for international travel. The Commission held that Annex 9 of the Chicago Convention did not authorize the airline to unilaterally reject a valid passport and that the denial of boarding amounted to deficiency in service.

Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Air Arabia to refund ₹16,572, being the cost of the original ticket, pay ₹1,20,000 as consolidated compensation for mental agony, financial loss, hardship and trauma, and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. It further directed that the amounts be paid within one month, failing which they would carry 9% annual interest until realization.

Case Title: Manikandan Nagaraj vs. Air Arabia PJSC

Case Number: C.C.No.388/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order