Cancelled Flight Tickets: Hyderabad District Commission Orders Go Airlines To Compensate For Unfair Trade Practices And Deficiency In Service

The Commission directed Go Airlines to pay Rs.13,956/- to be paid towards the Complainant’s other flight charges, and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the litigation costs.

Brief Facts:

The Complainant booked Go Airlines Tickets in advance bookings for a round-trip to the Maldives for December 2021. The tickets were confirmed, and a substantial amount of Rs.77,408/- was paid. However, ten days before the scheduled flight, Go Airlines abruptly cancelled both flights via a simple email notice, without offering any valid reasons or alternate arrangements.

The Complainant faced severe losses since it had made additional arrangements such as resort bookings, local travel, and guides in the Maldives due to the peak holiday season. Due to the sudden flight cancellations, the Complainant had no choice but to book costly last-minute tickets for the entire family with another airline for the same dates, incurring a loss of Rs.13,956/-.

The Complainant promptly contacted Go Airlines, seeking a refund of the ticket fare along with interest and compensation for the financial loss, mental agony, and suffering caused by their arbitrary actions. However, the airline did not respond or comply with the demands.

Subsequently, a notice was issued to Go Airlines on 15.02.2022, but their response was evasive, requesting PNR numbers for further investigation. The airline then cited a flimsy and baseless rule, Clause 1.4 of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), to avoid liability, even though the Complainant was not informed about this rule when purchasing the tickets. Furthermore, no force majeure conditions were prevailing at the time, and the airline failed to inform the Complainant about any such circumstances.

The Complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices since the Airline's practice of implementing unfavorable terms and conditions in small fonts and revealing them only after payment is fraudulent, denying consumers the right to be aware of the terms in advance.

Contentions of the Parties:

Go Airlines disputed the allegations, claiming that the Complainant is attempting to deceive with fabricated facts and that the flight cancellations were solely due to operational issues beyond their reasonable control. It asserted that the Complainant was informed about the cancellations two days prior to the scheduled flight through SMS, and email.

Furthermore, Go Airlines argued that the Complainant has been fully refunded the total booking amount of Rs. 77,408/- and that there is no substantial loss as claimed, as all other expenses supposedly incurred by the Complainant for their stay and arrangements in the Maldives were not verified. It disputed any knowledge of the Complainant's alleged costly arrangements made in the Maldives,

The Airline cited the Civil Aviation Requirements, which provide provisions for compensating passengers in cases of denied boarding, flight cancellations, and flight delays. According to Clause 1.4 of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), airlines are exempted from paying compensation in case of flight cancellations caused by force majeure events beyond their control. Therefore, it refuted any claims of deficiency in their services.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission acknowledged that the Complainant had booked Go Airlines tickets in advance by paying Rs.77,408/-. It was also recognized that due to the sudden flight cancellations by Go Airlines, the Complainant was forced to book Indigo Airlines tickets at a higher cost. The Commission emphasized that the Complainant’s case was closed by the Airlines after the refund of ticket amounts without taking into consideration that the legal notice addressed the payment of adequate compensation for the damages, stress, mental agony, and loss.

The Commission concluded that though Go Airlines relied on clauses from CAR, it cannot be denied that the Complainant and his family members suffered severe mental agony and hardship due to the flight cancellations, indicating a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Airline. Thus, the District Commission directed that the Complainant is entitled to a refund of Rs.13,956/-, which was spent on other airline tickets, as well as Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the litigation costs of the complaint.

Case Title: Sri D.V. Manohar vs Go Airlines (India) Limited.

Counsel for the Complainant: Sri A.V. Dhanamjaya Rao, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Sri Anjaneyulu VUSSR, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order