Delhi State Commission Directs Kuwait Airways To Pay Rs. 6 Lakh Compensation, Litigation Cost For Wrongly Deporting Passenger

The State Commission directed the Airways to pay an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation for the financial loss with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental harassment and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation expenses.

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased an Air Ticket from Kuwait Airways for travel from Delhi to Kuwait to London. The purpose of the trip was to attend the Spring Fair International in the U.K., where he had booked a booth. The Complainant boarded the flight from Delhi to Kuwait to London on 01.02.2019. However, upon reaching Kuwait Airport, he was unexpectedly denied boarding for the connecting flight to London and was forced to return to New Delhi, despite having all the required travel documents.

To attend the fair, he had to purchase a new air ticket from Indian Airlines allowing him to reach Birmingham without any issues. Subsequently, the Complainant sent a legal notice to Kuwait Airways, demanding a refund of the ticket price and compensation for damages incurred due to the inconvenience caused.

The claims of the Complainant in the notice were rejected by Kuwait Airways, however, the staff at the Kuwait Airways counter in Delhi recorded the complaint made by the Complainant and promised to provide a detailed report explaining the reasons for denying them boarding. However, despite several requests, the airline staff failed to provide any reasons for their actions. Thus, the Complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission, alleging a deficiency of service on the part of Kuwait Airways.

Contentions of Kuwait Airways:

Kuwait Airways argued that there was no negligence on their part as the Complainant was offloaded from the flight and deported to India because of a "poor profile" assessment made by the Airline Liaison Officer (ALO), who represents the Embassy of the United Kingdom at the Kuwait International Airport for countries including Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Kuwait Airways asserted that the ALO is a necessary party and the case is invalid due to the non-joinder of parties. The airline emphasized that the decision to deport a passenger rests entirely with the ALO, and Kuwait Airways does not have any authority or involvement in the deportation process of any passenger, including the Complainant.

Observations of the State Commission:

The Delhi State Commission observed that the Complainant is a frequent flyer to the US and UK, holding valid travel documents. If deportation had occurred, the Complainant wouldn't have been able to obtain a UK visa and travel to the UK the next day. The Commission emphasized that deportation is a serious action with legal implications, but in this case, no proper procedure was followed, and Kuwait Airways staff carried it out without justification.

The Commission questioned how a reputable international airline could allow a passenger to board and then deny them a connecting flight without providing any supporting documents for such actions. The Commission found it concerning that Kuwait Airways presented no evidence of keeping the Complainant's seat vacant, and this raised doubts about breaching industry practices and contractual obligations.

There was no substantial evidence to link Mr. Arin Ghosh as the ALO responsible for the action. Referring to the relevant guidelines, the Commission held that even if he were the ALO, he only had the authority to advise on passenger documentation, while the decision to carry a passenger rested solely with the airline.

Reference was made to Indian Airlines and Anr. Vs. B. D. Sharma, The Emirates Airlines Vs. Mr. Mohammed Ghafoorur Rahman and Sardool Singh Ghuman vs. Air India & Anr., establishing that once a passenger's ticket is confirmed, the boarding pass cannot be denied. Kuwait Airways should have informed the Complainant about any issues in his profile beforehand, rather than denying boarding midway through his journey and causing disruptions. It also held that denial of boarding without sufficient reasons and subjecting the passenger to inhumane treatment amounts to a deficiency in service.

In conclusion, the State Commission on the basis of Air France Vs. O.P. Srivastava Dy. Managing Worker Sahara India Pariwar & Ors. and Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Mr. D.G. Sangal, held Kuwait Airways responsible for deficiency in service and remarked that the carrier had a duty to take reasonable care of the passenger and prevent exposure to humiliation, unwarranted harassment, and mental agony.

Case Title: Mr. Shameem Uddin vs. The Country Head of Kuwait Airways & Ors.

Counsel for Complainant: Mr. Mahmood Alam, Advocate

Counsel for Kuwait Airways: Ms. Deepika Gupta, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order