Airline Liable For Not Informing Preponed Flight; Chandigarh State Commission Enhances Compensation To ₹50,000

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), held Tata SIA Airlines Ltd liable for deficiency in service for preponing a flight without prior intimation to passengers. The Commission observed that timely communication of schedule changes is a fundamental obligation of airlines and enhanced the compensation to ₹50,000, while also awarding litigation costs and affirming the refund with interest.

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainants had booked domestic air tickets from Chandigarh to Delhi and return, along with international tickets from Delhi to Denpasar (Bali) and back, through Tata SIA Airlines Ltd by paying a substantial amount.

On 02.04.2024, upon reaching Denpasar Airport for their return journey, they discovered that their flight had been preponed without any prior intimation. As a result, they missed the flight and were stranded at a foreign airport.

The complainants were compelled to arrange alternate travel by purchasing fresh tickets at a cost of approximately ₹51,000. Due to the delayed arrival in India, they also missed their connecting flight from Delhi to Chandigarh and incurred additional expenses towards local transportation.

Despite issuing a legal notice, no relief was granted, prompting them to approach the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, directing a refund of ₹58,641 with interest and awarding ₹7,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

Dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation and absence of litigation costs, the complainants filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh seeking enhancement of compensation and other reliefs.

Contentions of the Parties

The airline contended that the appeal was devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. They argued that the District Commission had already granted appropriate relief by ordering refund along with interest and compensation, and there was no justification for enhancement.

Observation and Decision:

The Commission noted that it was undisputed that the flight had been preponed without prior intimation to the complainants. It held that such conduct constituted a clear deficiency in service.

Emphasising the duty of airlines, the Commission observed that timely communication of schedule changes is a fundamental obligation. It further noted that the complainants had reached the airport as per the scheduled departure time, only to find that their flight had already been rescheduled, rendering their tickets unusable.

The Commission highlighted that the complainants were stranded at a foreign airport, which caused significant stress, inconvenience, and financial burden, as they had to make immediate alternate arrangements at a higher cost without any assistance.

It also observed that the hardship was compounded as the complainants missed their connecting domestic flight and incurred further expenses.

Holding that compensation must be proportionate to the suffering endured, the Commission found the award of ₹7,000 by the District Commission to be inadequate.

The Commission partly allowed the appeal and modified the District Commission's order by:

• Enhancing compensation to ₹50,000 for mental agony and harassment

• Awarding ₹15,000 towards litigation expenses

• Affirming the refund of ₹58,641 with interest @ 9% per annum

The Commission further directed that the amounts be paid within 45 days, failing which they would carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default till realisation.

Case No.: FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/42/2026

Case Title: Aayush Bansal Vs. TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD & ANR

Click Here To Read/Download Order