5 days ago
Punjab Commission Orders Airline to Pay Rs 64,000
A family had planned a trip from Amritsar to Goa using a confirmed flight booking.
Their return flight was suddenly cancelled while they were in Goa.
The airline moved them to a flight the next day.
Because they had to stay another night, they paid Rs 14,000 for a hotel.
The family asked the airline to repay that cost and provide compensation.
The airline said dense fog near Amritsar caused the cancellation and that it was not responsible for bad weather.
The consumer commission agreed that flying in unsafe weather would not be right.
However, it said the airline should still have helped the stranded passengers with accommodation.
The airline was ordered to pay Rs 64,000 altogether.
A Punjab consumer commission ordered an airline to pay a passenger Rs 64,000 after cancelling his return flight from Goa.
The award includes Rs 14,000 for emergency hotel accommodation, Rs 30,000 compensation, and Rs 20,000 in litigation costs.
The passenger had booked Rs 82,588 worth of tickets for himself and three accompanying passengers traveling between Amritsar and Goa.
The airline said dense fog and poor visibility at Amritsar prevented timely Air Traffic Control clearance and caused the cancellation.
The commission said bad weather may justify cancelling a flight for safety, but the airline still had to provide reasonable assistance to stranded passengers.
- Who
- A passenger and three accompanying passengers, an unnamed airline, and a Punjab consumer commission.
- What
- The commission ordered the airline to pay Rs 64,000 for hotel costs, compensation, and litigation expenses after a cancelled return flight.
- Where
- The passengers were stranded in Goa after traveling from Amritsar, and the airline attributed the disruption to fog at Amritsar.
- When
- The cancellation occurred during the passengers’ Goa trip; the rescheduled journey was set for the following day.
- Why
- The commission found that the airline had not arranged accommodation or shown that it made a meaningful assistance offer after cancelling the confirmed flight.
Passenger and Commission
Airline
Responsibility after cancellation
Passenger and Commission
The passenger said the sudden cancellation left the family stranded in Goa and forced them to pay for emergency accommodation. The commission said the airline had to provide reasonable assistance and reimburse the documented hotel expense.
Airline
The airline argued that the cancellation resulted from circumstances beyond its control and that the passenger voluntarily accepted the rescheduled flight.
Effect of bad weather
Passenger and Commission
The commission accepted that unsafe weather could justify cancelling a flight but said that did not remove the airline’s responsibility to assist passengers afterward.
Airline
The airline said dense fog, poor visibility, and the resulting lack of timely Air Traffic Control clearance constituted force majeure, meaning compensation should not be payable.
Compensation claim
Passenger and Commission
The commission found that the cancellation caused inconvenience and mental harassment and awarded Rs 30,000 in compensation plus Rs 20,000 in litigation expenses.
Airline
The airline maintained that no compensation was due because the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond its control.
Key facts
- Total award
- Rs 64,000
- Hotel reimbursement
- Rs 14,000
- Compensation
- Rs 30,000 for inconvenience and mental harassment
- Litigation expenses
- Rs 20,000
- Ticket value
- Rs 82,588 for four passengers
- Stated cause of cancellation
- Dense fog and poor visibility at Amritsar
- Rescheduled journey
- The following day
Quotes
Punjab consumer commission
The Punjab consumer commission that adjudicated the passenger’s complaint
“The complainant and his family had planned their journey on the basis of a confirmed itinerary and sudden cancellation of the flight while they were away from their home city caused inconvenience, and mental harassment and they have compelled to make emergency arrangements for accommodation during the peak tourist season and rather also compelled to indulge in unwanted litigation expenses.”
indianexpress.com
“The passenger cannot be expected to bear an otherwise unavoidable and documented expenditure when the airline has neither arranged accommodation nor shown that it made any meaningful offer of assistance.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Punjab Commission Awards Passenger Rs 1.53 Lakh After Boarding Dispute
Consumer Commission Awards Student Rs 73,000 After Missed Flight
Bus Delay Leads to Missed Flight, ₹73,000 Compensation Ordered
Passenger wins compensation after airline wrongly demands UK visa
Northern Railway Revises Timings for 13 Train Services
India Plans 100 New Airports Under Rs 30,000 Crore UDAN Expansion
Ahmedabad Launches Hub-and-Spoke International Flight Services at Airport
BJP, AAP Clash Over 1984 Riots and Justice Claims
Chhattisgarh Police Seize Rs 2.23 Crore Ganja, Arrest Punjab Driver
