Consumer forum orders Qatar Airways to pay ₹10 lakh for denying boarding to family's children

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Ernakulam recently directed Qatar Airways to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation to an Indian family for denying boarding to their minor children during their return journey from India to Italy. [Roshan Jose & ors v. Qatar Airways]

The order was delivered on July 14, 2026, by a coram of President DB Binu along with members V Ramachandran and Sreevidhia TN.

The commission had observed that the airline had accepted the family's travel documents and allowed them to fly from Venice, Italy to Kochi, India, without any objection, but later refused boarding to their 6-year-old and breast feeding infant during the return journey on the very same documents.

It held that such inconsistent conduct by the airways amounted to deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice.

"The conduct of the opposite party in preventing a child from accompanying his parents on the return journey is wholly arbitrary and has shocked the conscience of this Commission...Having allowed the infant to travel from Venice to India, the subsequent refusal of permit for the return journey from India on the very same set of documents is patently inconsistent, unjustified and highly reprehensible."

The complaint was filed by one Roshan Jose, who is employed in Italy. He and his family had travelled from Venice to Kochi via Doha in November 2018, along with their children after Qatar Airways verified their travel documents, issued boarding passes and permitted them to complete their journey without raising any objection.

However, when the family reported for their return flight from Kochi to Venice via Doha on December 3, 2018, the airline officials kept them waiting for nearly two-and-a-half hours before refusing boarding to their 6-year-old child stating that he did not possess an independent Italian visa.

Since both parents had to return to work in Italy, they were forced to leave the 6-year-old with relatives in Kerala and continue the journey with their infant.

The family's ordeal continued at Doha airport, after the airline made them wait for nearly 10 hours before refusing to allow their 10-month-old infant to board the connecting flight to Venice. Faced with the risk of losing her job, the mother travelled alone to Italy, while the father returned to Kochi with the infant.

The children were later taken back to Italy separately after the family incurred substantial additional expenses.

Before the commission, Qatar Airways argued that passengers are responsible for carrying valid travel documents and clarified that boarding was denied for the children in accordance with instructions received from immigration authorities in Venice and Doha.

It also relied on Article 9 of the General Conditions of Carriage (code issued by international airlines Association) to contend that airlines are entitled to refuse transport where passengers do not possess valid travel documents.

The commission rejected the airline's defence, noting that if the children's documents were indeed insufficient, then the airline should have refused to let them travel from Venice to India in the first place.

It also observed that the airline had gone a step further by issuing boarding passes to the family from Kochi to Venice, after verifying the same documents, making the subsequent refusal to travel from Doha to Italy unjustified.

The forum further held that the airline's actions forced the parents to leave their children behind in India out of fear of losing their employment abroad, resulting in severe mental agony and emotional trauma.

Accordingly, the commission directed Qatar Airways to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the family and ₹25,000 towards litigation cost.

Advocates S Asokan appeared for the complainants.

Advocate Philip T Varghese represented Qatar Airways.

[Read Order]