Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 27
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH DISTRICT COMMISSION
Pawanjit Singh, President, B.M. Sharma, Member
Mohit Bansal – Appellant
Versus
IndiGo Airlines – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/44/CC/1058/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amandeep Singh, Neha Mathroo
For the Respondents: Shrey Goel, Kritika Gupta, Anshul Jain
Airlines are liable for deficiency in service when a flight is cancelled or downgraded without prior intimation, necessitating the purchase of expensive alternative tickets and causing ancillary financial losses (e.g., hotel forfeitures), regardless of internal operational constraints.
Headnote:The matter involves a claim for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection laws where passengers booked tickets from New Delhi to Detroit via Istanbul. The operating carrier cancelled/downgraded the flight without prior intimation, forcing the passengers to purchase emergency tickets from another airline at an exorbitant cost and causing losses due to non-refundable hotel bookings. The court found that the sudden cancellation without notice, regardless of operational reasons, caused financial loss and mental agony. The primary issue was whether the sudden cancellation of the flight and failure to provide timely alternate arrangements amounted to a deficiency in service. The court reasoned that while some refunds were provided, the 'sudden cancellation of the flight, without prior intimation, caused the complainant and his son considerable mental agony and forced them to incur excessive charges' [Para 3(v)]. The present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund 1,10,258/- to the complainant(s) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from 15.8.2025 onwards and to pay consolidated amount of 50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment and for costs of litigation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual matrix of flight cancellation in a codeshare agreement and resulting losses. (Para 1) |
| 2. assessment of deficiency in service based on lack of notice and financial impact. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. quantification of damages including differential ticket costs and compensation. (Para 4 , 5) |
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,
U.T. CHANDIGARH
| Consumer Complaint No. | : | CC/1058/2025 |
| Date of institution | : | 11/11/2025 |
| Date of Decision | 01/07/2026 |
Mohit Bansal (Age-47 yrs.) s/o Sh. Om Prakash Bansal, r/o #1065, First Floor, Sector 21-B,
Chandigarh. PIN CODE-160022. Email - mbhcl@yahoo.com.
..... Complainant
Versus
1. IndiGo Airlines through its Manager.
Address 1: Registered Office - Upper Ground Floor, Thapar House, Gate No.2, Western
Wing, 124 Janpath, New Delhi 110001. Email- nodalofficer@goindigo.in
Address 2: Corporate Office - Third Floor, Emaar Capital Tower 2, Mehrauli -Gurugram,
Haryana 122002.
2. Turkish Airlines through its Manager.
Address 1: Unit No:1001A, 10th Floor Time Tower, Sector 28 M.G. Road, Gurgaon 122001.
Haryana, Delhi.
Address 2: No. 367, Badam Singh Market NH-8, Near Shiv Murti, Rangpuri, New Delhi
110037.
...Opposite Parties
CORAM : SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH PRESIDENT
SHRI B.M. SHARMA MEMBER
ARGUED BY : Ms. Neha Mathroo, Advocate proxy for Sh. Mandeep Singh,
Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Shrey Goel and Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advs. for OP No.1.
Sh. Anshul Jain, Advocate for OP No.2
Per Pawanjit Singh, President
1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by complainant
against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief
facts of the case are as under :-
a. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer
complaint that the complainant and his son had booked tickets
from New Delhi to Detroit via Istanbul on 15.08.2025 through
Turkish Airlines (codeshare with IndiGo Airlines) [Copy of
tickets Annexure C/1 (colly]. On reaching Delhi Airport, IndiGo
staff issued boarding passes only up to Istanbul and informed
them that the onward flight was cancelled, thereby denying
boarding. No prior intimation of cancellation was given, though
airlines are duty bound to inform passengers in advance. IndiGo
offered hotel stay, but the complainant stayed with relatives in
Gurugram. Despite assurances of a revised itinerary, no
arrangements were made, and Turkish Airlines later confirmed
no seat availability to Detroit until 20.08.2025. Since the
complainant’s son had mandatory university orientation in the
USA starting on 18.08.2025, an emergency ticket had to be
purchased from Lufthansa Airlines at an exorbitant cost of
2,37,492/- [Annexure C/2]. Additionally, hotel bookings in the
USA had to be cancelled, resulting in partial refund losses of
15,739.92 and forfeiture of non-refundable bookings worth
28,721.26 [Annexure C/3 colly]. Emails exchanged with both
airlines [Annexure C/4] revealed Turkish Airlines shifted
responsibility to IndiGo, while IndiGo offered only 20,000 per
passenger compensation and erroneously claimed an alternative
flight was offered. Turkish Airlines refunded the original ticket
amount [Annexure C/5]. Further, Air Help app showed that the
Delhi–Istanbul flight actually departed with a 55-minute delay,
contradicting IndiGo’s claim of cancellation [Annexure C/6].
Thus, the complainant was misled, forced to incur heavy
expenses, and suffered financial loss and mental agony due to
deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by IndiGo
Airlines, which as the first carrier of the codeshare ticket bore
responsibility to provide alternate arrangements. The aforesaid
act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on
the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the
claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer
complaint.
b. OP No.1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written
version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of
maintainability and cause of action and admitted that on
15.08.2025, the Complainant and the accompanying Passenger
