Back
Flight grounded, passenger compensated: Airline and agent held jointly liable for no-show notice
In a significant ruling for air travelers, the in Chandigarh has pinned joint responsibility on Air India and travel agent Alhind Tours and Travels for failing to inform a passenger about a flight cancellation. The bench, led by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Preetinder Singh (Member) , partly allowed Sohil Bhasin's appeal, enhancing compensation for mental agony from Rs 30,000 to Rs 1 lakh while making both parties liable.
From Sharjah Summit to Airport Shock: The Unscheduled Detour
Sohil Bhasin, a 55-year-old consultant from Chandigarh, had a high-stakes meeting lined up in Sharjah, UAE, on , promising professional fees of AED 20,000. To make it on time, he booked an Air India flight from New Delhi to Sharjah on May 20 via Alhind Tours and Travels for AED 510. Arriving at Delhi Airport punctually, Bhasin was stunned to learn the flight was cancelled—with zero prior notice from either the airline or the agent.
Forced to shell out an extra AED 270 (Rs 6,075) for a next-day ticket after partial refund adjustment, Bhasin missed his meeting, claiming lost income and harassment. His initial complaint before the succeeded partly against the agent but absolved Air India. Seeking more relief, he appealed to the SCDRC on ; the decision came on .
Airline Points to Agent, Agent Points Elsewhere: Blame Game in the Sky
Air India admitted the booking and refund of AED 455 via the agent on May 21 but leaned on norms allowing cancellations for operational reasons. They argued prior intimation went to the travel agent under the Billing and Settlement Plan (BSP), shifting all passenger communication duties there. No direct contract with Bhasin meant no liability for them, they claimed, denying any service deficiency or responsibility for professional losses.
Alhind Tours pushed back harder, alleging : Bhasin dealt with their Dubai affiliate, Alhind & Middle East Travels LLC—a "separate legal entity." They denied deficiency, , or liability for losses.
Bhasin countered that the airline, as primary carrier, couldn't dodge by blaming the intermediary. Both had his details; the consumer shouldn't suffer from their internal lapses.
Chain of Service, Chain of Accountability: Commission's Sharp Reasoning
The SCDRC dismantled the blame-shifting, ruling both parties part of the "same chain of service" in air carriage contracts. Drawing from the 's Sudipto Sarkar vs Union of India (2014), which awarded Rs 1 lakh for similar disruptions, the Commission stressed "meaningful and realistic compensation" for arbitrary travel halts.
While rejecting claims for full professional fees (AED 20,000)—noting available same-day flights and Bhasin's failure to mitigate damages—the bench held the lack of notice caused undeniable "inconvenience, uncertainty and anxiety," especially for time-sensitive international trips.
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
"The Airlines, being the carrier, is primarily responsible for operating the flight and communicating cancellations. The agent, having issued the ticket and received consideration, equally owes a to ensure that the passenger is informed."
"In matters of flight cancellation, the obligation to inform the passenger cannot be compartmentalized in a manner so as to absolve one at the cost of the other... both are for the arising out of non-intimation of cancellation."
"Under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble ... observed that arbitrary disruption of scheduled air travel causing inconvenience and hardship warrants meaningful and realistic compensation and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac."
Dual Liability, Upped Payout: What Travelers Gain
The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the District order: Air India and Alhind now to:
- Refund Rs 6,075 (AED 270) + 9% interest from .
- Pay Rs 1,00,000 for mental agony and harassment.
- Cover Rs 35,000 litigation costs.
Non-compliance triggers 12% penal interest. This precedent reinforces that airlines can't outsource communication failures to agents, empowering consumers in cancellation chaos. Future cases may see stricter scrutiny on joint duties, potentially reshaping how travel disruptions are handled.
