The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for cancellation of a flight without providing operational reasons which caused inconvenience to the Complainants. The bench directed Air India to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainants along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation expenses.
Brief Facts:
In February 2022, the Complainants planned to visit their children in America, and their son booked air tickets from Air India for them with a specific travel schedule. Due to health issues of Complainant No.1, the Complainants rescheduled the return tickets on payment of Rs. 29,400/- extra. The Complainants also booked train tickets based on the rescheduled flight. However, they received an email from the airline on January 12, 2023, stating that their booked flight was cancelled, and the journey was rescheduled to a new flight, causing inconvenience, and reaching India at an odd hour of the night.
The sudden rescheduling of the flight by the airline caused harassment and trouble to the Complainants, who reached India at 1:55 a.m., leaving them hampered and dependent on others for support. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the airline.
Air India, in its defence, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, concealment of facts, and cause of action. It contended that the flight was cancelled for operational reasons in the larger interest, safety, and security of the public. It asserted that alternative arrangements were made as a good business gesture, and since the Complainants travelled without objection, the consumer complaint was not maintainable.
Observations by the District Commission:
Upon examining the email sent by Air India to the Complainants regarding the rescheduling/cancellation of the flight, the District Commission noted that the mail was silent on whether the cancellation was indeed due to operational reasons. Therefore, the District Commission held Air India liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
While the Complainants sought a refund of the amount for the preponed tickets, the District Commission acknowledged that the Complainants had travelled on the alternative flight arranged by Air India. Thus, the District Commission held the Complainants were not entitled to a refund of the ticket amount. Consequently, the District Commission directed Air India to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. Additionally, Air India was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainants as costs of litigation.
Case Title: Raj Jindal and Anr. vs Air India
Case Number: CC/323/2023
