The ruling underscores a key principle in consumer law – airlines must be able to substantiate claims when denying boarding to passengers. (AI-generated image)

“Once valid boarding passes have been issued, it becomes obligatory upon the airline staff to actively facilitate passengers, particularly elderly citizens and their co-travellers, to ensure they board the flight,” the commission added.

Relief granted

While the complainants had sought Rs 9 lakh as compensation, the commission held that they had failed to establish financial losses of such magnitude. However, it found merit in their grievance regarding the additional amount charged for rescheduling.

“Since the Opposite Party forced a rescheduling of the flight and collected an additional Rs 11,010/- for the same without any justifiable cause or supporting evidence of delay on the passengers’ part, we are of the firm opinion that the Opposite Party must refund this amount,” the Commission said.

Allowing the complaint, the commission directed IndiGo to:

• Refund Rs 11,010 collected towards rescheduling charges.
• Pay interest at 9 per cent per annum on the amount from the date of filing of the complaint until realization.
• Pay Rs 6,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
• Pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.

Gujarat trip plans disrupted

• According to the complaint, the family had booked tickets on September 13, 2023, for a nine-day tour of various cities in Gujarat.
• They paid Rs 13,087 for tickets on IndiGo Flight 6E-5117 from Delhi to Vadodara, scheduled to depart at 5.35 am on November 1, 2023.
• The complainants said they reached Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport well in time, completed check-in formalities and were issued boarding passes.
• They claimed they also reached the boarding gate within the stipulated time and entered it.
• However, upon approaching the aircraft, they were allegedly informed by airline staff that their tickets had been cancelled.
• According to the complaint, they were denied boarding without any valid explanation and their requests to be accommodated on the next flight without extra charges were rejected.
• Left with little choice, the family arranged additional funds and purchased fresh tickets worth Rs 11,010 for another IndiGo flight departing later the same day.
• Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, they approached the consumer commission seeking compensation.

IndiGo’s defence

IndiGo contested the complaint and maintained that the passengers had failed to report at the boarding gate before its closure.

The airline argued that the boarding gate for Flight 6E-5117 had been closed in accordance with standard operating procedures before departure and that the passengers reached the gate only at 5.15 am, after closure. According to the airline, the passengers were consequently marked as “No Show”.

It also claimed that boarding announcements had been made and that the passengers were later accommodated on another flight after paying the applicable rescheduling charges and fare difference. The airline denied allegations of rude behaviour or forcible deboarding.

No evidence to support airline’s claim

After examining the record, the commission noted that IndiGo had failed to substantiate its defence.

The bench observed that despite receiving five opportunities to lead evidence, the airline failed to do so. Consequently, its evidence was closed by an order dated April 8, 2026.

The commission noted that while the airline repeatedly asserted that the passengers had reached the gate after its closure, no documentary or oral evidence was produced to establish the claim.

“The sole defense raised by the Opposite Party is that the boarding gate closed at 05:10 AM, whereas the Complainants reached the gate at 05:15 AM. However, no evidence has been produced by the Opposite Party to substantiate this assertion,” the order said.

The commission also took note of the boarding passes issued to the complainants, which were later marked as cancelled.

Duty towards senior citizens

• The commission placed particular emphasis on the fact that Captain Prem Chand Chauhan was a senior citizen aged around 67 years.
• It observed that airline staff were expected to actively assist and facilitate elderly passengers rather than mechanically categorising them as ‘No Show’.
• “Once valid boarding passes have been issued, it becomes obligatory upon the airline staff to actively facilitate passengers, particularly elderly citizens and their co-travelers, to ensure they board the flight,” the commission said.
• The bench further noted that the complainants had no real option but to accept rescheduling and pay an additional Rs 11,010 in order to continue their journey.

Why this judgment matters

The ruling is likely to attract attention from air travellers across the country because it underscores a key principle in consumer law – airlines must be able to substantiate claims when denying boarding to passengers.

The decision also reinforces the obligation of airlines to extend reasonable assistance to senior citizens and highlights that merely labelling passengers as “No Show” may not be sufficient unless supported by credible evidence.

For travellers who have faced last-minute boarding disputes, the Hamirpur commission’s order serves as a reminder that consumer forums remain an avenue for challenging airline decisions when passengers believe they have been treated unfairly.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh helpline: 1800-180-8087) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.