The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi) has held Air India liable for deficiency in service, directing the airline to pay a total of Rs 1.5 lakh to a passenger and his daughter who endured a “horrible and obnoxious” experience on a round-trip flight between India and New York.
The bench, comprising President Ms. Poonam Chaudhry and Member Mr. Shekhar Chandra, observed that the airline failed to provide basic amenities such as functional seats and hygienic washrooms, for which a considerable amount was charged.
Background of the Case
The complainant, Shailendra Bhatnagar, along with his daughter, Ms. Aishwarya Bhatnagar, booked Economy Class tickets through Make My Trip (Opposite Party No. 2) for travel from New Delhi to New York on September 6, 2023 (Flight AI102), and return on September 13, 2023 (Flight AI101). The total cost incurred for the tickets was Rs 2,73,108, with an additional payment of Rs 45,000 for rescheduling the daughter’s ticket.
The complainant alleged that the journey was marred by severe deficiencies. According to the complaint, the condition of the flight was “horrible and obnoxious.” Specific grievances included:
- Broken chairs in the economy class with non-functional backrest buttons.
- Defective flight attendant call buttons.
- Non-functioning monitor screens (PTV) for the duration of the 15-hour flight.
- An “extremely bad smell” in the aircraft with no use of air fresheners.
- Unhygienic washrooms described as “worse than even public toilets,” lacking basic toiletries like sprays.
- Poor quality food (cold tea, no sugar or stirrers) and rude, non-responsive staff.
The complainant stated that a legal notice sent to the airlines on November 3, 2023, and November 9, 2023, garnered no response, prompting the consumer complaint seeking a refund of the ticket amount and compensation for mental agony.
Arguments of the Parties
The Complainant’s Stand: The complainant argued that despite paying for a comfortable journey, the services provided were substandard. He submitted photographs of the flight’s condition and contended that services like functional screens and proper hygiene are included in ticket prices. He further alleged that the staff became “ignorant and non-responsive” to their grievances.
Air India’s Defense (Opposite Party No. 1): Air India denied the allegations, submitting that the aircraft underwent a meticulous inspection by the engineering department prior to departure, which yielded “no discernible issues.”
The airline claimed that the complainant and his daughter had requested an upgrade to Business Class at the time of check-in, citing their loyalty as frequent travelers. When this request was declined due to unavailability, their demeanor allegedly changed. Air India argued that the passengers “falsely alleged a malfunction of the Personal Television (PTV) system” and persisted in seeking an upgrade.
The airline maintained that the aircraft undergoes thorough cleaning and that the crew extended every feasible arrangement, including offering reading materials and meals of choice. Air India characterized the complaint as an attempt to “illicitly obtain advantages” and leverage the threat of tarnishing the airline’s reputation.
Make My Trip’s Defense (Opposite Party No. 2): The travel portal argued that it acts merely as a facilitator for booking tickets and is not an agent of the airline. It submitted that its liability is limited to ensuring confirmation of reservations and that no deficiency was alleged against its specific booking services.
Court’s Analysis
The Commission analyzed the evidence, including the photographs placed on record by the complainant and the legal notice which remained unanswered by the airline.
The Commission noted that under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, an airline is a “service provider,” and failure to provide mandatory facilities under DGCA rules amounts to a deficiency in service.
Addressing Air India’s defense, the Commission observed:
“During the course of arguments we were very specific to put to OP-1 as to why the OP-1 has given a very vague reply to paragraphs 4 to 9 of the complaint wherein serious allegations relating to poor facilities and services of OP-1 are made. No satisfactory answer is given.”
The bench further noted that Air India maintained silence on the legal notice sent by the complainant. “Had there been no fault with the services of OP-1, surely the OP-1 must have reacted sharply,” the Commission remarked.
The Commission relied on the precedent set by the District Consumer Commission, Chandigarh, in Rajesh Chopra Vs Air India Limited, where compensation was granted in almost identical facts. It also referred to Rear Admiral Anil Kumar Saxena Vs Air India Ltd., where compensation was awarded for defective seats causing physical pain.
Regarding Make My Trip, the Commission found no force in the complainant’s submissions to claim compensation from the booking portal, accepting that the deficiency lay with the airline’s amenities.
Decision
The Commission held that the complainant was entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment.
“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Commission is of the view that the complainant will be entitled for compensation for causing mental agony and harassment for not providing the facilities for which considerable amount was charged by OP-1.”
The Commission passed the following directions:
- Compensation: Air India (OP-1) is directed to pay Rs 50,000 each to the complainant and his daughter (Total Rs 1,00,000).
- Litigation Expenses: Air India is directed to pay Rs 50,000 as litigation expenses to the complainant.
- Ticket Refund: The request for a refund of the ticket amount (Rs 3,18,108) was declined as the passengers had already availed of the travel.
The complaint was disposed of with these directions.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shailendra Bhatnagar Vs. Air India & Anr.
- Case No.: CC/446/2023
