Pranav B Prem

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member), held IndiGo Airlines liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for offloading a passenger after boarding, without providing the promised assistance or alternate arrangements.

Also Read: Baramulla Consumer Commission: Himalayan Motors Directed To Replace Or Refund Defective Supro Profit Truck; ₹70,000 Compensation Awarded To Buyer

Background

The complaint was filed by Mr. T.P. Salim Kumar, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) and then General Manager of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (SUPPLYCO). He frequently travelled between Mumbai and Kochi. On December 14, 2019, he booked IndiGo Flight 6E-755 (PNR FCRZHL) from Mumbai to Kochi, paid ₹12,447, and was allotted Seat 15F. After boarding, the airline directed him alone to deboard the aircraft, citing an “operational/technical issue.” He was assured of a full refund, confirmed accommodation on the 21:20 hrs flight the same evening, and rest and food facilities. However, the 21:20 hrs flight seat was never provided; instead, he was rebooked on Flight 6E-6185 departing at 00:25 hrs on December 15, 2019.

Although IndiGo offered him lounge access, he was later asked to pay ₹2,150 for certain items said to be excluded from the lounge entitlement. Feeling humiliated, he paid the amount under protest. The airline subsequently offered him a ₹10,000 travel voucher and ₹10,000 as ex gratia compensation, both of which he rejected as inadequate. Aggrieved by the treatment, he filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking refund, reimbursement for missed cinema tickets, and compensation for harassment and mental agony.

IndiGo’s Defence

IndiGo argued that the complaint was not maintainable due to misdescription of the legal entity and a jurisdiction clause in its Conditions of Carriage conferring jurisdiction on courts in New Delhi. It contended that the complainant was offloaded owing to an unforeseen operational seat constraint and that he was re-accommodated on the next available flight within six hours as per DGCA norms. The airline maintained that the ₹2,150 charge pertained to alcoholic beverages excluded from the lounge entitlement and therefore not reimbursable. It denied any deficiency in service and relied on Supreme Court rulings such as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Satchidanand to justify its position.

Commission’s Observations

Rejecting IndiGo’s technical objections, the Commission held that “IndiGo Airlines” is the trade name of InterGlobe Aviation Ltd., the airline that dealt with the complainant, and that part of the cause of action had arisen in Kerala. The Delhi jurisdiction clause, it said, could not oust the jurisdiction of a statutory consumer forum under Section 34(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, the Commission found that IndiGo’s assurances of refund, accommodation on the 21:20 hrs flight, and provision of rest and food facilities were not honoured. The airline’s conduct in requiring the complainant to pay ₹2,150 at the lounge, despite prior assurance of complimentary access, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The Bench held that no document was produced by IndiGo to show that the exclusion of beverages was ever communicated to the complainant, observing that any ambiguity in the service terms must be construed against the service provider (contra proferentem rule). Citing the DGCA’s Civil Aviation Requirements and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan (2019), the Commission stated that standard-form contractual clauses cannot override consumer rights, and air carriers must ensure fair and humane treatment of passengers. It remarked: “A lone traveller was asked to step off an aircraft after boarding, promised an earlier connection and care, and then left to endure a late-night wait capped by a public demand for payment — an experience that any reasonable person would find distressing and humiliating.”

Order

Allowing the complaint partly, the Commission directed IndiGo to:

• Refund ₹2,150 (lounge charges) with 9% interest per annum from 15.12.2019 until realization.

• Refund ₹626 towards cinema ticket reimbursement, with 9% interest from 15.12.2019.

• Pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and inconvenience.

• Pay ₹20,000 as litigation costs.

The amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of the order, failing which the compensation shall carry 9% interest from the date of complaint filing until full realization.

Also Read: Ernakulam Consumer Commission Holds Aditya Birla Health Insurance Liable For Arbitrarily Denying Accident Claim On Grounds Of Unrelated Pre-Existing Ailments

Finding IndiGo guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Ernakulam Consumer Commission emphasized that airlines must treat passengers with dignity and cannot rely on one-sided contractual clauses to avoid accountability. The Commission reaffirmed that consumer forums have jurisdiction to protect passengers’ rights when airlines fail to deliver the promised standard of service.

Cause Title: Mr. T.P. Salim Kumar v. IndiGo Airlines

Case No: C.C.No. 409/2021

Coram: Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member), Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member)