Back
Airlines Held for Flight Disruption Losses by
In a significant order highlighting the responsibilities of carriers in codeshare agreements, the , has ruled against and for following a sudden flight cancellation. The commission, presided by Pawanjit Singh and member B.M. Sharma, directed the two airlines to jointly compensate a passenger who was left stranded and forced to purchase last-minute emergency tickets.
The Stranded Passenger: A Case of Disruption The case pertains to a traveler, Mohit Bansal, who had booked a journey from New Delhi to Detroit, USA, via Istanbul. While the booking was made through , the first leg of the journey was to be operated by under a .
Upon reaching the Delhi Airport on , the complainant and his son were informed that their onward connection was cancelled. Despite claims from the airlines that alternative arrangements were offered, the complainant was eventually told by that no seats were available for several days. With the complainant's son needing to reach the USA for a mandatory university orientation program, the family was forced to book last-minute tickets through at a cost of ₹2,37,492, while also suffering monetary losses from non-refundable hotel bookings.
Arguments from the Cockpit: Airline Contentions argued that the flight was "downgraded" due to extraordinary operational reasons beyond their control. They contended that they had offered hotel accommodation and alternatives, and that their liability was limited as a mere operator under the , pinning the refund-related grievances on .
, conversely, shifted the burden, stating they acted only as the and had no operational control over the flight operated by IndiGo. They maintained that they had fulfilled their contractual obligations by processing a full refund for the original tickets.
Legal Analysis: The Commission’s Findings The Commission dismissed the airlines' attempts to avoid accountability. The bench observed that the sudden nature of the cancellation, combined with the lack of proactive notification, left the passenger with no choice but to incur significant additional expenses.
The court noted:
"The sudden cancellation of the flight, without prior intimation, caused the complainant and his son considerable and forced them to incur excessive charges for alternative ticket."
The Commission further found that while the airlines had refunded the original ticket costs, they failed to account for the "differential cost" of the emergency travel and the losses stemming from cancelled hotel bookings. The judgment emphasizes that in a codeshare arrangement, the passenger must be protected from procedural runarounds between the marketing and operating carriers.
Key Observations
The Commission highlighted the following pivotal points:
*
"The OPs are liable to pay the differential amount of ₹65,798/-... in addition, they must reimburse ₹44,460/- towards the hotel charges not refunded to the complainant."
*
"There is clear
on the part of the OPs. They are liable to pay the differential cost of the alternative tickets, the unreimbursed hotel charges, and suitable compensation."
*
"The flight of OPs cancelled suddenly and the complainant had to book an alternative flight on higher rate... the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to
."
Final Verdict: A Consumer-Centric Relief The ordered the airlines to pay a total sum of ₹1,10,258 towards the differential flight fare and hotel losses, coupled with ₹50,000 as compensation for and . The judgment sets a firm precedent that international carriers cannot evade liability by citing "codeshare" complexities when they fail to provide adequate service to the consumer. The order stipulates a 45-day deadline for payment, failing which a of 12% per annum will be levied.
This decision reinforces the principle that operational constraints of an airline do not absolve them from the financial consequences suffered by passengers forced to make emergency arrangements due to lack of standard service delivery.
