A Bengaluru consumer disputes redressal commission has directed an airline and an online travel portal to jointly pay Rs 78,920 to an aggrieved passenger after failing to disburse an agreed refund when an elderly traveller was wrongly barred from his return flight to India.
Partly allowing the consumer complaint, a bench comprising in-charge President V Anuradha and members H Janardhan and Sharavathi S M ruled that withholding promised funds despite written assurances amounted to both a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The commission ordered the two entities to reimburse the ticket price of Rs 65,920, alongside Rs 10,000 in compensation and Rs 3,000 to cover legal expenses.
Internal List Error Leads To Boarding Denial
The dispute originated from round-trip tickets booked through a travel website by a woman on behalf of her parents for travel between Delhi and Newark. The complainant’s father, a wheelchair-bound senior citizen with underlying health conditions, had successfully completed the outbound journey from Delhi to the United States on June 8, 2024, on the same ticket and passenger name record following an earlier date modification.
Trouble arose during the return leg at Newark Airport, where ground staff prevented the passenger from boarding after citing a name discrepancy on the passenger manifest. Left with no alternative at the airport counter, the family was forced to purchase a fresh ticket for Rs 71,241 to facilitate his return to Delhi.
Assurances Over Ticket Reimbursement Remain Unmet
Following the ordeal, the passenger’s daughter requested a refund for the extra ticket expense. Both the carrier and the booking portal accepted the request in principle, agreeing to return the amount in two instalments comprising Rs 65,920 towards the base ticket and Rs 5,321 for the fare differential.
However, despite sustained follow-ups from the passenger’s family, the promised money was never remitted to their account, prompting the filing of a formal consumer complaint.
Companies Trade Blame Over Operational Failures
In their response to the commission, both companies sought to disclaim responsibility. The booking agency contended that it served merely as a booking facilitator and was not accountable for boarding rejections at the terminal. It further stated that it had processed Rs 65,490 after subtracting convenience fees, adding that when an initial bank transfer failed, the sum was parked in the user’s portal wallet before a link was sent to obtain alternative account details.
The airline maintained that the boarding refusal was prompted by an automated system notification flagging a name mismatch against the passenger’s identification, in line with statutory international travel rules. The carrier stated it held no control over the entry of passenger credentials at the booking stage, and added that it had authorised a full refund while instructing the traveller to claim it through the booking agency.
Commission Rejects Defence And Mandates Payout
The commission dismissed the arguments, noting that the traveller had already cleared outbound immigration and flown from Delhi using the identical booking details. The bench held that the problem arose from a clerical error on the airline counter’s own passenger list rather than any fault of the passenger.
The bench concluded that documentary evidence demonstrated both companies had agreed to reimburse the passenger but failed to ensure the actual return of the money, establishing a clear case of deficient service and unfair commercial conduct.
