Emirates Airlines Held Liable For Forcing Passengers To Pay For Pre-Booked Seats Despite Free Availability: Mumbai State Commission
Pranav B Prem
The Mumbai State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising S.P. Tavade (President) and Vijay C. Premchandani (Member), has held Emirates Airlines liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for misleading passengers into paying for pre-booked flight seats despite the availability of free seats. The Commission upheld the order of the South Mumbai District Consumer Commission, directing the airline to refund ₹7,200 with 6% interest, along with ₹5,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs.
The complaint was filed by passengers who had booked round-trip tickets from Mumbai to New York via Dubai on Emirates Airlines for a family trip, receiving confirmation on August 26, 2017. The return flight was scheduled for September 15, 2017. According to the complainants, due to high passenger volume, they opted for online check-in and were informed that only limited free seats were available, which could be allotted within 48 hours before departure. To secure comfortable seating, they paid ₹7,200 for pre-booking. However, upon reaching the airport, they discovered that free seats were available and alleged that the airline had misled them into paying the additional amount.
The South Mumbai District Commission found merit in the complaint and held Emirates Airlines guilty of providing misleading information. It directed the airline to refund the seat-booking charges with interest and compensate the passengers for mental distress and inconvenience. Aggrieved by the order, Emirates Airlines preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Mumbai, contending that the passengers had voluntarily paid to reserve their preferred seats and were never forced to do so. The airline argued that passengers could have opted for free seat selection within 48 hours of departure had they chosen to wait.
After reviewing the evidence, the State Commission rejected the airline’s submissions and upheld the findings of the District Commission. The Bench observed that while airlines are entitled to charge a premium for specific seat selections, they are equally obligated to disclose transparently which seats are available for free and which are premium. The Commission found that Emirates Airlines had failed to provide this crucial information, thereby keeping the complainants “in the dark” about their options.
The Commission further observed that the airline’s conduct amounted to following a “dark pattern”, as defined under the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. These guidelines describe dark patterns as deceptive design practices that manipulate users into making unintended choices through misleading UI/UX designs. The Commission held that Emirates Airlines’ act of concealing the availability of free seats and inducing passengers to pay additional charges constituted an unfair trade practice and a violation of consumer rights.
The order stated that the complainants were misled into believing that paid seat selection was necessary when free seats were, in fact, available. The Commission concluded that this conduct caused financial loss, mental agony, and trauma to the passengers. Consequently, the State Commission dismissed Emirates Airlines’ appeal and affirmed the District Commission’s directions for refund, compensation, and litigation costs.
Accordingly, Emirates Airlines has been directed to refund ₹7,200 with 6% interest from the date of payment until realization, along with ₹5,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹3,000 towards litigation expenses. The decision reinforces that airlines must maintain full transparency in seat-allocation practices and refrain from misleading consumers into unnecessary payments.
Appearance
For Appellant: Adv. Kawashaw Jagoes i/b Vikram Philip & Associates
For Respondents: Present in person
Cause Title: Emirates Airlines vs Dr. Keshab Nandy
Case No: Appeal No. A/2021/15
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mr. S.P. Tavade (President), Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani (Member)
