Indirect route delays family’s return from US, wins Rs 91,000 from Air India

4 min readNew DelhiJun 19, 2026 04:30 PM IST

Air India did not contest the proceedings and was proceeded against ex parte. (Image generated using AI)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur, has directed Air India to pay Rs 91,000 to a family after holding the airline guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for rescheduling their confirmed direct return flight from the United States and shifting them to a connecting flight two days later, on an indirect route.

A bench of president Kiranjit Kaur Arora and member Suman Khanna noted that the family had to suffer a lot due to the act and conduct of the airlines.

“The present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs 80,000 as consolidated compensation on account of deficiency in service, mental agony, pain and harassment to the complainants. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs 11,000 as litigation expenses to the complainants,” the order dated June 9 read.

Flight rescheduled

According to the complaint, the complainant had booked Air India tickets online on April 20, 2025, for travel from New Delhi to New York on June 6, 2025, with return tickets on a direct Air India flight from Newark to New Delhi on July 1, 2025. The family paid Rs 3,17,149 for the tickets.

The complainants alleged that on the day of their scheduled return journey, Air India emailed them stating that, due to “unforeseen operational reasons”, their itinerary had been changed.

It was stated that instead of the confirmed direct flight on July 1, they were shifted to an indirect Air France itinerary departing New York on July 3 and reaching New Delhi on July 4 via Paris.

The family contended they had no option but to accept the revised itinerary because they could not extend their stay in the United States owing to business and employment commitments.

They alleged that the Air India flight on which they had held confirmed tickets had in fact operated as scheduled on July 1, while they had been denied boarding and shifted to another indirect airline.

Air India did not contest the proceedings and was proceeded against ex parte after failing to appear before the commission.

Compensation granted

The bench noted that the allegations and evidence produced by the complainants remained unrebutted.

“The opposite parties did not care to contest the claim of the complainants and rebut the evidence led by them as aforesaid and as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either the opposite parties admit the claim of the complainants or have nothing to say in the matter,” the commission observed.

It stated that in such circumstances, it was fully convinced with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainants.

The commission remarked that the airline had acted arbitrarily by providing incorrect information regarding the flight schedule.

Story continues below this ad

“The commission is of considered opinion that the conduct of the opposite parties is arbitrarily as they provide wrong information to the complainants regarding its schedule,” the commission held.

Holding the airline guilty of unfair trade practice, the commission partly allowed the plea and directed Air India to pay Rs 80,000 as consolidated compensation on account of deficiency in service, mental agony, pain and harassment to the complainants.

It further directed to pay Rs 11,000 as litigation expenses to the complainants.

The commission directed compliance with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Story continues below this ad

Significance of this judgment

The order underscores that passengers are entitled not only to refunds or alternative travel but also to compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony and disruption caused by unjustified changes to confirmed bookings. It also highlights the importance for service providers to transparently communicate operational changes and actively defend their actions in legal proceedings if they seek to avoid adverse findings.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Punjab helpline: 1800 300 11 007) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience.

Expertise

Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents.

Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes:

Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity.

Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes:

Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law.

Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates.

Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More

Tags:

consumer court