Broken seats, dirty toilets, poor food: Delhi consumer court directs Air India to pay ₹1.5 lakh to family

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI at New Delhi recently directed Air India to pay ₹1.5 lakh as compensation to a passenger and his daughter over deficiency of service on a long haul international flight. [Shailendra Bhatnagar v. Air India & Anr.]

The father-daughter duo had complained about broken seats, non-functional in-flight entertainment systems, unhygienic washrooms, poor food service and lack of response from the cabin crew.

The Commission in its order stated,

"Commission is of the view that the complainant will be entitled for compensation for causing mental agony and harassment for not providing the facilities for which considerable amount was charged."

It ordered the Air India to pay ₹50,000 each to the complainant and his daughter, along with ₹50,000 as litigation expenses.

However, it declined the request for a refund of the ticket amount, noting that the passengers had completed the journey.

The order was passed by a coram of President Poonam Chaudhry and member Shekhar Chandra in a complaint filed by Shailendra Bhatnagar, who travelled with his daughter on Air India’s Delhi–New York–Delhi flight in September 2023 on economy class tickets booked through MakeMyTrip.

He alleged multiple lapses during the long-haul journey, including broken and uncomfortable seats, malfunctioning controls and call buttons, inoperative entertainment screens, unhygienic washrooms, foul odour inside the aircraft, poor quality food and beverages and a lack of response from the cabin crew despite repeated complaints.

Air India denied the allegations, maintaining that the aircraft had undergone routine checks before departure and was cleared for operation.

The airline claimed that the complainant and his daughter had requested an upgrade to business class, which could not be granted due to a lack of available seats. They suggested that the complaints surfaced only after the request was turned down.

Air India also argued that the cabin crew assisted the passengers and offered alternative amenities during the flight.

The Commission, however, emphasised that airlines have a statutory obligation to provide basic facilities to passengers who have paid for air travel.

"Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, an airline is a “service provider” and a passenger who has paid for a ticket is a “consumer”. If the airline fails to provide facilities that are mandatory under DGCA rules (like food, water, AC, communication, accommodation, or information about delay/cancellation), that amounts to “deficiency in service”. The passenger can then claim for refund and/or compensation."

It noted that the complainant had provided photographic evidence showing the condition of the seats and had also sent a legal notice to the airline detailing his grievances.

Air India neither responded to the notice nor offered any satisfactory explanation for the specific complaints about seat condition, in-flight systems, hygiene and overall service quality, the Commission noted.

According to the Commission, this lack of a clear rebuttal significantly weakened the airline’s defence.

“In the legal notice all the allegations as made in the present complaint case are there but the OP-1 (Air India) maintained silence. Had there been no fault with the services of OP-1 (Air India), surely the OP-1 (Air India) must have reacted sharply."

The complainant had sought a full refund of ₹3.18 lakh, including additional charges paid for a change in travel date, along with compensation of ₹10 lakh.

The Commission declined the request for a refund, holding that the passengers had availed the service by completing the journey. It ruled that compensation, rather than refund, was the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

The complaint had also named MakeMyTrip as an opposite party, but the Commission dismissed all claims against the travel platform.

It held that MakeMyTrip’s role was limited to facilitating the booking and that it had no control over flight operations or onboard services. As there was no issue with ticket booking or confirmation, the Commission found no deficiency in service on its part.

The complaints were represented by SB & Associates.

[Read Order]