Denied boarding despite valid papers, Kapurthala consumer court tells airline to pay up
The airline was also ordered to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala, has held an airline responsible for deficiency in service after a passenger was denied boarding despite valid travel papers. The commission directed the airline to refund the passenger’s ticket amount and pay compensation along with litigation expenses.
The complaint was filed by Rajeev Mittal, a resident of New Model Town, Phagwara, against Air India Express Ltd. and its officials after he was prevented from boarding a scheduled flight from Amritsar to Dubai on March 27, 2022. According to the complaint, Mittal had purchased two tickets — one for himself and another for his son — for travel to Dubai for a business trip. The tickets were booked through a travel agency in Phagwara.
Mittal stated that he held a valid Indian passport and a valid United States visa, which, under UAE immigration rules, allows Indian passport holders to obtain a visa on arrival in Dubai. Based on these regulations, he did not apply for a separate Dubai visa. However, upon reaching Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport in Amritsar, airline ground staff allegedly refused to issue him a boarding pass, preventing him from travelling despite his eligibility.
The complainant argued that the refusal disrupted his scheduled business meetings and resulted in multiple financial losses, including cancellation of hotel reservations and return flight tickets. He also approached the Dubai immigration authorities via email, who reportedly clarified that the issue was related to the airline’s boarding process rather than any restriction from the immigration authorities.
In response, the airline contested the complaint, stating that its system indicated “Visa Not Found” during the check-in process after a query was sent to the UAE Government’s API cell. The airline claimed that despite attempts to obtain clearance from the Dubai authorities, permission was not received in time, and, therefore, the passenger could not be checked in for the flight.
After examining documentary evidence and arguments from both sides, the consumer commission observed that the complainant had produced proof of a valid passport and a valid US visa, establishing his eligibility to travel to Dubai under the visa-on-arrival policy. The commission further noted that the airline failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify the denial of boarding.
The commission concluded that the airline’s action amounted to deficiency in service, as the passenger possessed valid documents and had purchased a legitimate ticket for travel. However, the Commission rejected the claim for refund of the son’s ticket, noting that the son had been permitted to travel but chose not to board the flight voluntarily.
In its final order, the consumer commission partly allowed the complaint, directing the airline to refund the full ticket price paid by the complainant for his own travel without any deductions. Additionally, the airline was ordered to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation and litigation expenses for the inconvenience and hardships caused to the passenger.
