A Delhi consumer commission has ordered an airline to pay more than ₹68,000 to a passenger who was denied check-in for a Delhi-Bengaluru flight after the carrier itself rescheduled the departure time. The commission found the airline deficient in service and held that it had failed to justify why the passenger was refused boarding despite reaching the airport according to the revised schedule.
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the airline to refund ₹12,713 spent by the passenger on a replacement flight and ₹334 incurred on hotel accommodation. It also awarded ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and harassment, along with ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The order was passed by Commission President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar along with members Harpreet Kaur Charya and Ashwani Kumar Mehta.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
Flight Rescheduled From 1 PM to 4 PM
The passenger had booked a Delhi-Bengaluru flight for February 3, 2019. On the day of travel, the airline revised the departure time from 1 pm to 4 pm and informed him by email that the flight had been delayed due to operational reasons.
According to the complainant, he reached the airport in accordance with the revised timing but was denied check-in on the ground that he had arrived late and that all passengers had already checked in. He maintained that he had reached within the required check-in period.
After being denied boarding, the passenger had to book another flight at a higher fare of ₹12,713 and also incurred ₹334 in hotel expenses. He approached the airline for reimbursement, alleging that it acknowledged the inconvenience but refused to refund the amount.
He subsequently moved the consumer commission seeking reimbursement of the replacement flight fare and hotel expenses, ₹1.5 lakh in compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
Airline Blamed Passenger for Missing Check-In
The airline contested the complaint and argued that the passenger had failed to comply with the prescribed check-in timeline because of his own negligence. It maintained that he was fully aware of the check-in and boarding requirements.
The airline further claimed that the passenger had failed to reach its check-in counter within the mandated period and said it had offered him an alternative flight subject to applicable re-accommodation charges. According to the airline, the passenger declined that option.
The commission, however, found shortcomings in the airline’s explanation. It noted that the flight timings had been revised and held that when an airline itself reschedules a flight, it has a greater responsibility to accommodate passengers who arrive according to the changed timing.
Commission Says Airline Failed to Produce Records
The commission noted that the airline had not indicated the check-in time alongside the list of passengers. It observed that if check-in for the flight had actually closed by the time the complainant arrived, the airline could have produced CCTV footage or system logs to establish the same, but failed to do so.
The commission held that denying check-in without sufficient justification after rescheduling the flight, followed by failure to produce relevant records, amounted to gross deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice under consumer protection law.
It consequently ordered the airline to reimburse ₹12,713 for the replacement flight and ₹334 in hotel charges. In addition, the passenger was awarded ₹50,000 for mental agony, inconvenience and harassment and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.
The ruling underlined that when an airline changes a flight’s departure schedule, it must take reasonable steps to accommodate passengers who reach the airport in accordance with the revised timing.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/policetechnology
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
