Qatar Airways Asked To Compensate Kerala High Court Judge For Denying Boarding Despite Having Pass

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam on Monday directed Qatar Airways to pay an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- to Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, Judge of the Kerala High Court, for precluding him from boarding the flight despite having the necessary boarding passes, due to overbooking.

The Commission comprising the President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. passed the Order on Justice Thomas' complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the airline company in the year 2018. 

Justice Thomas, then a senior advocate, averred that he had booked tickets with Qatar Airways in advance, for his trip to Scotland with his friends. He submitted that he had reached Cochin International Airport, and obtained boarding passes for the two Sectors for the travel from Cochin to Doha and Doha to Edinburgh. However, it is the case of the complainant that upon reaching Doha tor a connecting flight to Edinburgh, he was denied permission to board the plane due to overbooking despite having the boarding passes for the flight. He stated that the airline staff claimed that denial of boarding was a normal practice, and offered him a night's accommodation and a flight for the next day, thereby causing inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. It was argued that the complainant had pleaded with the airline company principle of last come first go ought to be adopted in cases of overbooking and that he was not the person to be offloaded since he had booked tickets four months in advance. 

He thus sought compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs) and the costs of the proceeding. 

Qatar Airways on its part, refuted the allegations raised against it. It was argued that the airline company had fulfilled its contractual obligations and "provided Compensation to the complainant". It was submitted that the present case was vexatious and an abuse of due process. It was added that the Airways had provided hotel accommodation, meal Vouchers, an alternative flight, and a refundable voucher as compensation to the complainant, and denied the allegations raised against the company. It was thus argued that compensation had been provided to the complainant as provided under the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) Para 3.2.2, Para 3.6.1 and Para 3.7 which stipulates for 'Denied Booking'. 

It was thus contended by the Airways that since the complainant was provided with compensation more than that had been provided under the CAR, there was arose no case of deficiency of service. 

The Commission in this case noted that the Airways had admitted that the complainant had been involuntarily denied boarding due to some technical error on their part. The Commission noted Para 3.8 of the CAR which provides for 'Passenger Redressal' and Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which stipulates that the statute shall not be in derogation of any other law. 

"The above provision makes it immensely clear that a passenger has liberty to complain to any statutory body/count set up under relevant applicable laws, In the instant case the complainant was not satisfied with the redressal of his grievance and has approached this District Commission for the redressal of his grievances," the Commission observed. 

The Commission took note of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pallav Mongia v. Union of lndla & Anr. (2018), and thereby rejected the claim of the Airways that it could not grant compensation beyond what has been provided under the CAR. 

"It is clear from the evidence adduced that the Opposite Parties that they have not resorted to the procedure enunciated in Para 3.2.1 of the CAR (that the airline must first ask for volunteers to give up their seats So as to make seats available for other booked passengers to travel on the flight, in exchange of such benefits/facilities as it may wish to offer in case of overboarding). Furthermore, once boarding passes are issued by the opposite parties produced as 'EXHIBIT A2 boarding pass by the complainant' which specifies the seat number and flight number, the Opposite Party cannot go back from its performance of the Contract without any valid reason as mentioned in CAR Paragraph 2.6 definition of denied boarding' ie "except where there are reasonable arounds to refuse carriage such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation.' The Opposite Parties does not have a case that the complainant herein was refused carriage due to any of the abovementioned reasons," the Commission noted. 

It thus found that the present case was not an instance of denial of boarding due to overbooking, but rather, that the complainant had been denied boarding due to practice of issuance of multiple boarding passes to the same seat in violation of CAR and other International Conventions and guidelines which only deals with Overbooking of tickets by which a passenger would be denied issuance of the boarding pass. 

Thus, the Commission found that there was a clear instance of deficiency of service on the part of the Airways, "who also has indulged in an 'unfair trade practice' by means of 'unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice' for their illegal enrichment especially since airline tickets price surge during high demand and when booked near to the date of travel". 

The Commission further noted that the complainant had arrived at his destination with a day's delay, and was exhausted from the jet lag, and couldn't fully enjoy his trip. 

Importantly, the Commission noted that the Opposite Parties had questioned the credibility and integrity and addressed him as a complainant and also accused him of engaging in fraudulent conduct. 

"The complainant herein has only exercised his legal right to redress his valid grievances against the opposite parties. It is unfair and inappropriate tor the airlines to make baseless accusations against a Consumer who has filed a Complaint seeking to address their legitimate rights, especially when the airline claims to have a good reputation and goodwill as a service provider," the Commission observed. 

The Airways was thus held liable of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in denying boarding to passengers who hold valid boarding passes without assigning any reason. 

Accordingly, the Opposite Parties were directed to pay Rs. 7.5 Lakhs as compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant, the mental agony, hardship, and physical stress due to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, and also towards the cost of proceedings, within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the Order. It was added that on failure to render the amount, interest at the rate of 9% shall be attracted from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order till the date of realization. 

Advocates Enoch David Simon Joel, Sreedev S, Rony Jose, Leo Lukose, Karol Mathews Alencherry, and Derick Mathai Saji appeared on behalf of the complainant. Advocate Rakesh Paul appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 

Case Title: Bechu Kurian Thomas v. Qatar Airways & Anr. 

Click Here To Read/Download The Order