COVID-19 Repatriation Charter Flight Not Deficient In Service: Chandigarh Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Qatar Airways
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Qatar Airways, holding that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was made out in respect of a special repatriation flight operated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commission observed that inconvenience caused due to extraordinary circumstances such as a global pandemic cannot, by itself, be equated with deficiency in service in the absence of clear negligence on the part of the service provider.
The complainant, Surendra Adlakha, a Non-Resident Indian and permanent resident of Sydney, Australia, had travelled to Chandigarh in February 2020 and was scheduled to return to Australia on 18.03.2020. However, owing to the outbreak of COVID-19 and the nationwide lockdown imposed in India, all scheduled international flights were suspended, preventing his return as planned. Subsequently, limited international travel was permitted under special arrangements facilitated by the Government of India. In this context, the Australian High Commission, in collaboration with Qatar Airways, organised special chartered repatriation flights to evacuate Australian citizens stranded in India. The complainant opted to travel on one such repatriation flight from New Delhi to Sydney on 29.04.2020.
For the said journey, the complainant paid ₹1,64,639 as airfare for a one-way ticket, alleging that the fare was substantially higher than pre-pandemic airfare. He also paid ₹5,000 for a bus journey from Chandigarh to Delhi, which was arranged under pandemic travel protocols. The complainant alleged that despite charging higher fares on the premise of COVID-19 safety measures, Qatar Airways failed to maintain social distancing onboard the aircraft, operated the flight at full capacity, and did not ensure adequate sanitisation. He further alleged inconvenience due to delayed delivery of his baggage, which was received three days after his arrival in Australia while he was undergoing mandatory quarantine.
Aggrieved by these circumstances, the complainant issued a legal notice seeking refund of the airfare and bus charges, along with compensation for mental agony. As the grievance was not resolved, he approached the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Qatar Airways.
Qatar Airways, in its written version, denied all allegations and submitted that the flight in question was a government-facilitated chartered repatriation flight operated in coordination with the Australian High Commission and not a regular commercial service. It was contended that fares for such chartered evacuation flights were fixed considering extraordinary operational costs during the pandemic and in consultation with the concerned governmental authorities. The airline further submitted that all applicable safety and health protocols for chartered operations were duly followed and that maintaining social distancing onboard aircraft was neither feasible nor mandated for such repatriation flights. With regard to the bus journey from Chandigarh to Delhi, it was contended that the arrangement was made by the Australian High Commission and not by Qatar Airways. As for the delayed baggage, the airline submitted that the delay was attributable to pandemic-related operational constraints and was not deliberate.
Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the Commission noted that the complainant had travelled during an unprecedented global crisis when the entire country was under a strict lockdown and all scheduled flights were suspended. The Commission held that once the flight was found to be a special chartered repatriation flight arranged for evacuation during extraordinary circumstances, comparison of the fare charged with pre-pandemic commercial airfare was wholly misconceived. It was further observed that the complainant failed to place on record any statutory or regulatory mandate applicable to chartered repatriation flights requiring maintenance of social distancing or empty middle seats.
On the issue of alleged violation of COVID-19 protocols, the Commission held that no cogent evidence was produced to establish breach of any binding guideline applicable to the flight in question. With respect to the grievance regarding delayed delivery of baggage, the Commission observed that the complainant had failed to prove any actual loss suffered due to the delay so as to constitute deficiency in service. The complaint relating to the bus journey from Chandigarh to Delhi was also rejected on the ground that the said arrangement was not made by Qatar Airways and that neither the bus operator nor the Australian High Commission had been impleaded as parties to the proceedings.
The Commission emphasised that inconvenience caused due to force majeure events such as a global pandemic, governmental restrictions and emergency evacuation measures cannot be treated as deficiency in service unless clear negligence or unfair trade practice is established. In the present case, the complainant failed to discharge this burden. Accordingly, holding that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was made out, the District Consumer Commission dismissed the complaint, without any order as to costs.
Cause Title: Surendra Adlakha vs. Qatar Airways IBE
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/280/2021
Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member)
