Air India Held Liable for Wrongful Offloading; Consumer Commission Orders Refund, ₹1 Lakh Compensation and ₹50K Costs
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi) has held Air India liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after two passengers—Rishabh Sharda and Akshit Bansal—were offloaded from their confirmed flight to Paris despite possessing valid Schengen visas, boarding passes, and having cleared immigration. The Bench comprising President Poonam Chaudhry and Members Bariq Ahmad and Shekhar Chandra directed the airline to refund the ticket amount for the July 27, 2022 flight and to pay each complainant ₹1,00,000 as compensation, along with ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses.
The complainants had booked Air India flight AI-143 from New Delhi to Paris to attend the Tomorrowland music festival. They asserted that they reached the airport well before time, completed check-in formalities, received boarding passes, and cleared immigration. Their visas, as later confirmed by the Embassy of Spain, were valid from July 27 to September 9, 2022. Despite producing all relevant documents—including confirmed return tickets and travel details—they were stopped at the boarding gate without explanation.
After repeatedly insisting on a written reason for being denied boarding, Air India staff handed them a printout with remarks reading: “OFLD BY ALO MR MUELLER SUSPECTED PROFILE / MR MUELLER ALO ADVS PAX TO GO TO SPAIN EMBY FOR INTERVIEW.” The complainants maintained before the Commission that no Airline Liaison Officer interacted with them at any point during their eight-hour ordeal at the airport. They eventually retrieved their luggage only around 9 p.m., spending the entire day waiting in distress.
When the passengers approached the Embassy of Spain the same night, embassy officials reportedly expressed shock and clarified that no restriction had been issued. The embassy also issued a written confirmation stating that a “valid visa had been granted… from 27.07.2022 till 09.09.2022”, contradicting Air India’s assertion that the offloading was done based on ALO instructions. According to the complainants, the airline’s stance was not supported by any documentary record.
Air India, in its defence, argued that it was bound by mandatory SOPs and travel advisories issued by foreign authorities. It claimed that the passengers lacked a confirmed hotel booking, a requirement for international travel, and that the profiles of the complainants were “suspected” by the ALO of the Spanish Embassy. It contended that it had no option but to deny boarding once the ALO recommended that the passengers undergo an interview at the embassy. The airline relied on Article 14 of its General Conditions of Carriage to argue that passengers are solely responsible for compliance with travel requirements.
The Commission rejected the airline’s justification, noting that there was “nothing on record” to show that the ALO had issued any instruction to deny boarding. The Commission also highlighted a key inconsistency: although Air India claimed that the passengers could not travel due to the absence of hotel booking proof on July 27, they were allowed to fly two days later—again on Air India—without being required to produce any such document. This inconsistency, the Commission observed, weakened the airline’s version considerably.
Relying on the judgment in Shameem Uddin v. Country Head of Kuwait Airways (2023), later upheld by the National Consumer Commission in 2024, the Commission reiterated that “not permitting a passenger holding a confirmed ticket to board a flight amounts to deficiency of service.” Stressing that the complainants held valid visas issued by the competent authority, it found no legal basis for Air India’s refusal to board them, especially when the Spanish Embassy itself denied issuing any adverse directions.
The Commission held that the airline’s conduct caused substantial “harassment, humiliation, and mental agony,” and amounted to clear deficiency in service. It also observed that the complainants suffered financial losses, having missed the Tomorrowland festival, their connecting train from Paris, and prepaid accommodation bookings.
Ultimately, the Commission directed Air India to refund the ticket cost for the July 27, 2022 flight and to pay ₹1,00,000 each to the complainants as compensation, along with ₹50,000 towards litigation costs. The amounts must be paid within four weeks, failing which they shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realization. The complaint was accordingly disposed of.
Cause Title: Rishabh Sharda Versus Air India
Case No: CC-113/2023
Coram: Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President, Mr. Bariq Ahmad, Member, Mr. Shekhar Chandra, Member
