Pranav B Prem

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (Commission-VI), comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmed (Member), and Shekhar Chandra (Member), has held Indigo Airlines (InterGlobe Aviation Limited) liable for deficiency in service for providing unhygienic and stained seats to a passenger on an international flight from Baku to New Delhi.

Also Read: Alliance Air Directed To Pay ₹50,000 For 6-Hour Flight Delay Causing Mental Agony: Delhi District Consumer Commission

The complainant, a senior citizen named Ms. Pinki, had booked air tickets along with her husband and two relatives through Motherson Air Travel Agencies for Rs. 1,87,758 under PNR No. 317GNI for the Indigo Flight No. 6E1804 scheduled to depart from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Delhi on 2nd January 2025. Upon boarding the aircraft, she was shocked to find her allotted seat (Seat 5F) in an unhygienic and dilapidated condition, with visible stains and dirt. Despite raising the issue with the cabin crew, the only recourse offered was a middle seat in the 14th row (Seat 14E), thereby separating her from her accompanying family members.

Feeling humiliated and distressed by the condition of the seat and the helplessness of the staff, the complainant issued a legal notice on 13th January 2025. With no satisfactory response from the airline, she filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking compensation for mental trauma and harassment. She contended that the flight experience amounted to irresponsible and insensitive conduct and highlighted that such conditions, especially in the international sector, contradict the airline’s public image and claims of offering quality service.

The airline, in its defence, argued that the complaint was bad in law, as it was filed against "Indigo Airlines," which is not a legal entity, instead of InterGlobe Aviation Limited. It further submitted that the cabin crew had promptly responded to the complainant’s concerns and re-accommodated her in another seat. The airline also contended that the complaint lacked merit due to the absence of the Situation Data Display (SDD) report, which was not submitted by the complainant.

However, the Commission observed that the complainant had submitted a photograph of the seat in question, which clearly showed it to be in an unclean and substandard condition. Notably, the airline did not deny the authenticity of the photograph. The Commission also noted that the airline failed to produce the SDD report, which is a crucial internal document meant to record passenger-related incidents. This omission, the Commission held, significantly weakened the airline's defence.

Relying on Section 3, Series M, Part VII of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the Commission emphasized the obligation of airlines to maintain proper records of aircraft cleaning cycles and to ensure cabin crew are adequately trained in basic infection control measures. The airline failed to produce records demonstrating compliance with these requirements.

Additionally, the Commission underscored the duties of airlines under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, including the maintenance of proper hygiene standards, provision of proper services, and the need for a responsive grievance redressal system. The failure of the airline to provide clean and safe seating arrangements was held to be a direct violation of consumer expectations and contractual obligations.

Concluding that the airline was guilty of deficiency in service, the Commission held that while the complainant had completed her journey and thus could not be refunded the fare, she was entitled to compensation for the discomfort and mental agony suffered. Accordingly, the Commission directed the airline to pay:

• ₹1,50,000 as compensation for mental agony, physical pain, and harassment.

• ₹25,000 towards litigation expenses.

Also Read: Haryana RERA Dismisses Compensation Claim Against BPTP, Says Homebuyers Staying In Project After Delay Not Entitled To Additional Relief

The airline was directed to make the payment within four weeks, failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order until realization. The complaint was thus allowed, and the matter was disposed of with directions to upload the order on the Commission’s website.

Cause Title: Pinki V. Indigo Airlines

Case no: CC/58/2025

Coram: Poonam Chaudhry [President], Bariq Ahmed [Member], Shekhar Chandra [Member]