A consumer disputes redressal commission in Andhra Pradesh has ordered a private bus operator to pay Rs 73,000 in compensation and expenses to a college student who missed an onward flight from Bengaluru following an unannounced route diversion that delayed the journey by six hours.
The commission ruled that public transport operators cannot take shelter behind standard terms and conditions to justify major, unannounced route changes or extensive delays without establishing documented proof of an emergency.
Financial Compensation And Legal Costs
The order was delivered by a bench comprising President Karanam Kishore Kumar and members N. Narayana Reddy and S. Nazima Kausar. The forum directed the transport operator to provide Rs 50,000 to the complainant for mental agony and inconvenience, Rs 13,000 to cover consequential expenses including hotel accommodation and a replacement flight ticket, and Rs 10,000 toward litigation costs.
The bench observed that as a service provider, the carrier was obligated to exercise reasonable care and diligence in adhering to its published schedules. While acknowledging that minor delays can occur in road transport, the commission determined that an unexplained multi-hour delay causing a traveller to miss a pre-booked flight constitutes a clear deficiency in service.
Unannounced Detour Causes Six-Hour Delay
The complainant, who had secured admission to an academic programme in New Delhi, had booked an overnight journey from Adoni to Bengaluru to catch a connecting flight scheduled for 10:50 AM. According to the operator’s timetable, the bus was slated to depart Adoni at 11:15 PM and arrive in Bengaluru at 5:00 AM. Boarding staff had also assured the passenger that the vehicle would drop him near the airport by around 5:30 AM.
During the journey, the bus altered its course onto an alternate route without informing passengers. Instead of arriving early in the morning, the vehicle reached the airport area at 11:30 AM, by which time the flight had already departed.
Left stranded, the student had to reserve a room to wait for an evening flight, purchase a replacement ticket to Delhi for Rs 8,000, and finally reached his destination early the following morning.
Standard Terms Do Not Permit Unjustified Detours
Opposing the claim, the bus operator contended that its ticketing terms and conditions reserve the right to alter routes and timings to accommodate operational needs, traffic conditions, or safety concerns. The company argued that verbal statements made by crew members do not constitute legally binding commitments and noted that transport operations are governed under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The commission rejected these arguments, stating that standard ticketing conditions do not grant transport providers an unrestricted license to deviate from set routes without valid justification or passenger notification. The bench highlighted that the operator submitted no evidence demonstrating that the detour was forced by unavoidable disruptions such as road closures, police diversions, mechanical breakdowns, or safety hazards.
Noting that the passenger had exercised due diligence by maintaining a gap of nearly six hours between his scheduled bus arrival and flight departure, the commission held the operator liable and partly allowed the consumer complaint.
