Airline Held Liable for Denying Boarding to Phagwara Passenger
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kapurthala has ruled against an airline for deficiency in service after a passenger from Phagwara was prevented from boarding a flight despite holding valid travel documents. The commission has mandated the airline to refund the ticket cost and provide compensation along with litigation expenses.
Details of the Complaint
Rajeev Mittal, a resident of New Model Town in Phagwara, filed a complaint against Air India Express Ltd. and its officials. The issue arose on March 27, 2022, when Mittal was denied boarding for a scheduled flight from Amritsar to Dubai. He had purchased two tickets through a travel agency in Phagwara—one for himself and another for his son—for a business trip.
Mittal held a valid Indian passport and a valid United States visa. Under UAE immigration rules, Indian passport holders with a US visa are eligible for a visa on arrival in Dubai. Relying on this policy, he did not apply for a separate Dubai visa. However, upon arrival at Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport in Amritsar, airline ground staff refused to issue him a boarding pass, effectively barring him from travel.
Consequences and Airline's Defense
The denial of boarding disrupted Mittal's scheduled business meetings and led to significant financial losses, including the cancellation of hotel reservations and return flight tickets. In a key development, Mittal contacted Dubai immigration authorities via email, who clarified that the issue stemmed from the airline's boarding process, not from any immigration restrictions.
In its defense, the airline argued that its system showed "Visa Not Found" during check-in after querying the UAE Government's API cell. It claimed that despite attempts to obtain clearance from Dubai authorities, permission was not received in time, justifying the decision to deny boarding.
Commission's Findings and Order
After reviewing documentary evidence and arguments from both parties, the consumer commission observed that Mittal had provided proof of his valid passport and US visa, establishing his eligibility for travel under the visa-on-arrival policy. The commission noted that the airline failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify the denial of boarding.
The commission concluded that the airline's actions constituted a deficiency in service, as the passenger possessed legitimate documents and had purchased a valid ticket. However, it rejected the claim for a refund of the son's ticket, noting that the son had been permitted to travel but chose not to board voluntarily.
In its final order, the commission partly allowed the complaint, directing the airline to:
- Refund the full ticket price paid by Mittal for his own travel without any deductions.
- Pay Rs 15,000 as compensation and litigation expenses for the inconvenience and hardship caused.
This ruling underscores the importance of airlines adhering to service standards and properly verifying passenger eligibility before denying boarding.
