Delhi Consumer Commission Directs Qatar Airways To Pay ₹1.5 Lakh For Deficiency In Service And Harassment Of Passenger, Pregnant Daughter
Pranav B Prem
The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising President Poonam Chaudhry, and Members Bariq Ahmad and Shekhar Chandra, has held Qatar Airways liable for deficiency in service and for causing mental agony and harassment to a complainant and her daughter during their international journey. The Commission directed the airline to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation costs, to be paid within one month of receipt of the order, failing which the amount would attract interest at 7% per annum until realization.
Background
The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Advocate Meena Chaudhary Sharma, who had booked a business class ticket through Qatar Airways for travel to the USA, and an economy class ticket for her pregnant daughter. According to the complaint, the ordeal began at the Delhi Airport, where the complainant, having requested wheelchair assistance, was allegedly mistreated by a staff member who demanded Rs. 500 midway through the service. She stated that she paid the amount out of fear of being abandoned.
While the onward flight to the USA went without major issue, the problems intensified on the return journey. During the flight from Washington D.C. to New Delhi, her daughter—who was then pregnant—fell ill due to turbulence. The complainant alleged that despite repeated requests, the cabin crew refused to provide medical assistance. Concerned for her daughter’s health, the complainant temporarily exchanged her business class seat with her daughter’s economy class seat. The crew, however, objected to the seat exchange and allegedly began harassing both passengers, threatening them with arrest and deportation. One of the attendants, who claimed to be the head crew member, even attempted to physically move them from their seats. The complainant alleged that such treatment was inhuman and humiliating, especially considering her daughter’s delicate condition.
Upon arrival in Delhi, the daughter was rushed to Vinayak Hospital, Gujrawala Town, where she was diagnosed with a threatened abortion and had to be hospitalized for four days. With medical intervention, both the mother and the unborn child survived.
Airline’s Response
Qatar Airways, in its written reply, denied all allegations, describing them as false, baseless, and misconceived. The airline maintained that the complainant and her daughter were traveling in different classes, and that upgrading from economy to business class during flight was strictly prohibited under company policy. The airline also denied that any staff member demanded money for wheelchair assistance or that the in-flight crew behaved in a rude or negligent manner. It argued that the complaint lacked merit and deserved dismissal.
Commission’s Findings
After considering the pleadings, affidavits, and written arguments, the Commission observed that Qatar Airways had failed to produce its Conditions of Carriage applicable to the 2014 journey, instead filing a version updated in 2017, which the bench found irrelevant to the present case. The Commission also condoned a delay of one day in filing the complaint, citing the need for substantial justice. Relying on the decision of the Delhi State Commission in G.L. Sanghai & Ors. v. Scandinavian Airlines (2008), the bench emphasized that airlines must act with basic human sensitivity, especially when passengers are unwell or in distress. The earlier case had held that denying such basic assistance amounted to inhuman conduct and deficiency in service.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s observations in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh [(2004) 5 SCC 65], the Commission reiterated that the term “compensation” under the Consumer Protection Act is of wide connotation, encompassing not only actual loss but also mental, physical, and emotional suffering caused by negligent or oppressive acts. Applying these principles, the bench concluded that the airline’s conduct—including its failure to assist a pregnant passenger in distress and its staff’s high-handed behavior—amounted to clear deficiency in service and gross insensitivity.
Holding Qatar Airways responsible, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the airline to pay:
Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and
Rs. 50,000/- as litigation costs,
to be paid within one month, failing which the amount shall accrue interest at 7% per annum until realization.
The Commission’s order strongly reiterates that airlines are duty-bound to maintain humane and sensitive standards of service, particularly toward passengers facing medical distress during flights.
Cause Title: Meena Chaudhary Sharma vs Qatar Airways
Case No: Case No. CC/494/2016
Coram: Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member), Shekhar Chandra (Member)
