In a case highlighting the importance of accountability in airline services, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (Suburban), has directed budget carrier SpiceJet to pay a compensation of Rs 30,000 to a senior citizen after it issued an incorrect alternate ticket following a flight cancellation in December 2020.
The Commission, in its order dated June 17, held the airline guilty of “deficient service and negligent behaviour,” which caused the passenger both monetary loss and mental harassment. The panel awarded Rs 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and an additional Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
The complainant, a senior citizen from Ghatkopar, had booked a round-trip journey with SpiceJet from Mumbai to Darbhanga for December 5, 2020. While the outbound leg was completed, the return flight was cancelled due to bad weather. Given the urgency of returning to Mumbai to appear for an online PhD examination on December 8, the passenger requested an alternative arrangement.
SpiceJet arranged a new itinerary via Patna and Kolkata. However, upon reaching Patna, the complainant discovered that the connecting flight from Kolkata to Mumbai was scheduled to depart before his arrival in Kolkata. This scheduling error forced him to purchase a fresh ticket for the next day at his own expense. As a result, he missed his examination and suffered considerable hardship.
In response, the complainant approached the consumer forum, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. He sought a fare refund of Rs 14,577, compensation of Rs 2 lakh for mental agony, and Rs 25,000 for legal expenses.
SpiceJet defended itself, stating that the flight cancellation was due to weather—an uncontrollable circumstance—and that an alternative ticket was provided free of charge. The airline added that the fare had already been refunded through the booking agency.
The Commission acknowledged that the flight cancellation was indeed outside the airline’s control and taken in the interest of passenger safety. However, it held that issuing an incorrect alternate ticket constituted negligence. Although SpiceJet reimbursed the passenger later, the Commission ruled that the airline was still liable for the distress caused.
“Had the complainant checked the ticket when it was issued, the mistake could have been rectified on the spot,” the Commission noted, attributing some contributory negligence to the complainant. However, it emphasized that this did not absolve the airline of its primary fault.
