SC/30/CC/9/2025 BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI-GOA In the matter in Consumer Complaint 09 of 2025.

Before Adv. Ms. Varsha R. Bale, Officiating President Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member Mr. Rocky Pannu, s/o Surat Singh Pannu. ……Complainant-1 Mrs. Shalinee Pannu, w/o Mr. Rocky Pannu. ……Complainant-2 both above residents of r/o 165, Arrias Vaddo, Nagoa, Bardez, Goa.403516 V.

Lufthansa German Airlines, Indira Gandhi International Airport, No.367, Badam Singh Market NH-8, Near Shiv Murti, Rangpuri, New Delhi. 110037. …..Opposite Party-1 Budget Holiday Makers.Com, House No. 4/188, Peddem, Near Sports Complex, Mapusa, North-Goa. …..Opposite Party-2 Adv. Shri. Parikshit Sawant present for Complainant.

DATE: 18/02/2026 ORDER [per Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member]

This Order arises out of Complaint filed by the Complainants before this Commission alleging deficiency in service.

The brief facts as are hereinunder:

i. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainants are law-abiding citizens of India and UK respectively and are respectable members of society and residing at Bardez, Goa.

ii. That the Complainants are “Consumers” within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and had availed the services of OP-1 (Airline) and OP-2 (Travel Agent) for consideration. The OPs are service providers under the said Act in terms of providing travel and carriage services. That the Complainants had booked a flight with OP-1 Lufthansa German Airlines, from Mumbai to Munich which was scheduled to depart on 05/09/2024. The said booking was facilitated through OP-2. That the Complainant-2 Mrs. Shalinee Pannu, held a valid Schengen Visa issued by the Embassy of Greece. Thereafter due to a change in their travel plans, the Complainants decided to revise their itinerary to land in Germany first, with an onward journey to Italy, which is entirely permissible under Schengen travel regulations.

iii. Then on 05/09/2024, the day of travel, the Complainants arrived at the Lufthansa check-in counter at the Mumbai Airport, well in advance of the scheduled departure time alongwith the necessary and valid travel documents, including the passports and the visa.

iv. Pursuant to their contention the Complainants stated that the staff of OP-1 at the check-in counter arbitrarily and wrongfully refused to allow the Complainants to board the flight, inspite of the Complainants holding valid documentation and the reason cited for the refusal was that the Complainants first point of entry into the Schengen area must be the visa issuing country i.e.

Greece.

v. Thereafter the Complainants immediately clarified to the airline staff that their understanding of the Schengen rules were grossly misinterpreted and presented an official email from the French Embassy in order to substantiate their position; which clarified that entry into an Schengen country is permitted regardless of which member state issued the visa. Upon being presented with clear official clarification the staff of OP-1, however remained adamant and insisted on verifying the matter with the “German Border Police”. Ultimately the staff denied boarding without providing any valid justification written or otherwise and the refusal was arbitrary, unreasonable and amounted to severe harassment as the Complainants who had legitimate travel plans, were treated as though they were attempting to violate immigration laws.-

vi. The Complainants suffered a significant financial loss amount of Rs.2,80,884/- as a direct consequence of this wrongful denial of boarding, which comprised of the airfare of Rs.1,43,928/- and non-refundable hotel bookings amounting to Rs.1,36,956/-.

vii. That the actions of OP-1 constitute a clear “deficiency in service” as defined under section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 as the service provided was sub- standard, imperfect and faulty as the airline failed to exercise due diligence and care in understanding and