Back
Delhi Consumer Commission Holds IndiGo Liable for Denying Boarding After Flight Reschedule
In a significant ruling reinforcing passenger rights, the has held liable for and after the airline denied boarding to a passenger who arrived at the airport in accordance with a revised flight schedule. The Commission awarded the complainant a refund of ₹12,713 with 9% interest, ₹50,000 in compensation for , and ₹5,000 towards .
A Missed Connection: The Flight Rescheduled, the Passenger Denied
The case arose from an incident on , when Deyzeel Aggarwal , a computer science student about to join Infosys in Mysore, booked a confirmed IndiGo flight (6E 2839) from Delhi to Bengaluru. On the day of travel, at 1:26 PM, IndiGo sent an SMS and email informing him that the flight was delayed due to operational reasons and rescheduled to depart at 4:00 PM – a delay of 1 hour 10 minutes from the original scheduled time of 15:10.
Aggarwal stated that he reached the IndiGo counter at 2:45 PM , well before the revised departure time, only to be told he could not board. The airline treated him as a “,” claiming he failed to comply with the mandatory check-in timelines. Forced to purchase a last-minute ticket for ₹12,713 on another airline, Aggarwal filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund, compensation, and .
The Complainant’s Account: Arriving on Time, Turned Away
Aggarwal argued that he acted reasonably by arriving more than an hour before the rescheduled departure. He produced the SMS and email confirming the delay and the new timing. When he approached the counter, staff refused to issue a boarding pass, insisting that check-in had closed 45 minutes before the original departure time of 15:10. Aggarwal contended that this interpretation was unreasonable – the airline itself had shifted the schedule, and he should have been accommodated accordingly.
He further alleged that IndiGo’s subsequent emails acknowledged the inconvenience but refused a refund, leaving him with no option but to pursue legal action.
IndiGo’s Defence: Contractual Conditions and Operational Reasons
IndiGo mounted a multi-pronged defence. First, it argued that the complaint was misdirected because it was filed against “The Proprietor, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd” rather than the company’s correct corporate name – a technical objection the Commission later dismissed as inconsequential.
On the merits, IndiGo contended that the flight delay was due to operational reasons beyond its control , and that all passengers were duly informed. It relied on its (CoC) , which state that check-in closes 45 minutes prior to the scheduled departure and that failure to comply results in forfeiture of the booking amount. IndiGo claimed that Aggarwal was aware of these terms and that his “” status was a consequence of his own negligence.
The airline also cited the Section 3, Series M, Part IV , which provides that compensation for delays is only triggered when the delay exceeds two hours for flights with a block time of up to 2.5 hours. Since the delay was only 1 hour 10 minutes, IndiGo argued it had no obligation to provide facilities or refunds beyond the applicable taxes (₹244, which it claimed was already refunded).
The Commission’s Findings: Lies with the Airline
The Commission systematically dismantled IndiGo’s defence. Crucially, it noted that the airline failed to produce key documentary evidence that was exclusively in its possession:
- The passenger manifest or check-in log showing the time-wise check-in of all passengers.
- The boarding sheet with the exact closing time of check-in.
- Any system-generated report or CCTV footage to prove when Aggarwal actually reported.
Despite being directed to provide these records, IndiGo’s counsel stated that the airline did not have the details of passengers’ check-in times. The Commission observed:
“In absence of the above information, this Commission cannot verify as to whether all passengers had indeed checked in before the complainant arrived. If the check-in had actually been closed, the OP (InterGlobe Aviation Limited) could have easily produced CCTV footage or system logs. Their failure to do so proves that the complainant was arbitrarily denied boarding despite reporting on time for the revised flight.”
The Commission further held that in the cannot operate as a complete shield against under the . Relying on the ’s decision in , it affirmed that the relief under the Act is an additional remedy, and airlines cannot use their own terms to escape liability for .
Key Observations: and
The Commission’s order contains several stinging observations about IndiGo’s conduct:
“The act of denying check-in without justification, after rescheduling the flight, and then failing to produce relevant records amounts to gross , negligence and under the provisions of .”
“When an airline itself reschedules a flight, the duty of care becomes higher to accommodate passengers who arrive as per the revised timings.”
The Commission also noted that Aggarwal was a young professional traveling to join a new assignment at the start of his career, and the airline’s conduct caused him “, inconvenience and harassment.”
The Final Order: Compensation and Costs
Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed IndiGo to pay the following amounts within 30 days from the date of the order:
- ₹12,713 – refund of the flight ticket cost, with 9% per annum interest from (date of filing) until payment.
- ₹50,000 – compensation for , inconvenience, and harassment.
- ₹5,000 – .
If IndiGo fails to comply within the 30-day period, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of expiry.
The order serves as a strong reminder that airlines cannot hide behind fine print when they reschedule flights and then deny boarding to passengers who reasonably rely on the revised schedule. The burden to prove compliance with check-in timelines rests squarely on the carrier, and failure to produce evidence will be construed against it.
