A consumer disputes redressal commission in Punjab has ordered an airline to reimburse a passenger’s full ticket cost and pay Rs 30,000 in additional financial relief after finding the carrier liable for refusing him boarding on an international flight without valid justification.
Ruling and Financial Directives
The tribunal, chaired by President Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj alongside members Jyotsna and Jaswant Singh Dhillon, determined that the airline committed a clear deficiency in service by barring the traveler from boarding and subsequently denying his refund request. To resolve the dispute, the panel directed the airline to refund the complete airfare of Rs 1,23,381, alongside Rs 20,000 as compensation for harassment and mental distress and Rs 10,000 to cover legal fees.
Dispute Over Airport Arrival
The case stems from a planned trip from New Delhi to Toronto via Warsaw, for which the passenger had purchased a confirmed ticket through a booking agency for Rs 1,23,381. According to the complainant, he reached the Delhi airport roughly five hours before departure, holding a valid passport, a Canadian multiple-entry visa, and confirmed flight documents.
After completing mandatory security and document verifications, he approached the airline desk for a boarding pass. Stationed counter staff instructed him to wait for nearly an hour before ultimately denying him entry onto the aircraft. Left stranded, the traveler contacted his travel agent for reimbursement, only to be informed that refund authorization rested solely with the airline. He was subsequently forced to buy a second ticket to reach Toronto before seeking legal remedies before the consumer panel.
Key Email Undermines Airline Defence
In its defense, the airline denied any service failure and claimed the passenger was recorded as a no-show for failing to present himself at check-in within the stipulated timeframe. The carrier maintained that the ticket was non-refundable under its policy, except for statutory taxes totaling approximately Rs 8,920, which had already been credited through the booking agency.
However, the commission rejected the carrier’s claims, relying heavily on a contemporaneous email sent by the travel agency to the airline. The email confirmed that airport counter staff had stopped the traveler following questions regarding his travel intent and asked the carrier whether the passenger should receive a date change, refund, or be designated as a no-show.
Evaluating the evidence on a preponderance of probabilities, the commission ruled that this correspondence raised significant doubt over the airline’s unproven claims and rendered the traveler’s account far more probable.
Travel Agency Exonerated
While holding the airline liable, the panel dismissed all claims against the travel agency. The commission observed that the agency had functioned purely as a booking intermediary and had not committed any service deficiency.
