Sudden Cancellation Of Flight Without Provision Of Alternative Tickets Is 'Deficiency In Service' : Delhi District Commission Holds TATA SIA Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Bariq Ahmed (Member) held 'Vistara Airlines' liable for deficiency in service for a sudden cancellation of flight tickets of complainants without assigning any reasons and without arranging for any alternate flight. Brief facts: The complainants purchased five tickets from Vistara Airlines (“Airline company”) for their journey from Delhi to Chennai. They booked the tickets online on 17.02.2024 by paying the full amount of Rs. 31,165/- to begin their journey on 16.03.2024 from Delhi. Since the tickets were confirmed, the complainants made reservations for their connecting journey from Chennai to Rameswaram along with hotel accommodation. On 12.03.2024, the complainants received a message from the Airline Company that their flight had been cancelled. On an enquiry being made by the complainants regarding the availability of alternate flights from Delhi to Chennai on 16.03.2024 before 7:00 PM so as to reach Chennai in time before their onward journey to Rameswaram, it was found that no flights were available. Hence, the complainants were forced to purchase tickets at a higher price i.e Rs. 34,025/- from Air India. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the Airline Company, the complainant filed a complaint in the District Commission praying for appropriate reliefs. Submissions of the parties: The complainants submitted that sudden cancellation of the flight without any alternative was deliberate and intentional and thus is a 'deficiency in service'. They requested that the Airline Company be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,870/- as difference of the amount that was paid to Air India to purchase tickets at higher price. Prayer was also made for grant of appropriate compensation towards mental agony and harassment. The Airline Company, on the other hand, failed to file its written response to the complaint as required under Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 despite time being given by the commission. No one appeared on behalf of the company and therefore, the defence of the airline company was struck off. Hence, the commission proceeded ex-parte i.e without hearing the submissions on behalf of the airline company. Observations of the Commission: The bench took note of the documents filed by the complainants which established that they had booked their onward journey and also made further reservations. The cancellation message received from the airline company without any reasons/ alternative was also taken note of. Thus, the complaint was allowed by the Commission with the following reliefs: The Airline Company was directed to refund an amount of Rs. 2870/- A sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to be paid as compensation of mental agony, harassment and trauma. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid towards litigation expenses. Case Title: Mr. Surendra Singh & Ors. vs Vistara Airlines Case Number: CC-289/2024 Date of Judgment: 17/04/2025Click here to download order/judgment

Sudden Cancellation Of Flight Without Provision Of Alternative Tickets Is 'Deficiency In Service' : Delhi District Commission Holds TATA SIA Liable

Aakanksha Bajoria

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sudden Cancellation Of Flight Without Provision Of Alternative Tickets Is 'Deficiency In Service' : Delhi District Commission Holds TATA SIA Liable

Aakanksha Bajoria

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers