Delhi Consumer Court directs Kuwait Airways to Compensate Passenger for not allowing to Board London Flight

Delhi Consumer Court directs Kuwait Airways to Compensate Passenger for not allowing to Board London Flight

Terms it humiliation and causing mental harassment to him

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Kuwait Airways to pay Rs. 6 lakh compensation to a passenger for not allowing him to board an onward flight to London despite having a valid ticket, visa, and boarding pass.

A Coram of President Justice Sangita Dhingra (President) and Pinki and JP Agrawal (Members) stated, "To deny a person the boarding of the plane is nothing short of callous, tortuous and an oppressive act, as it causes immense mental agony, physical discomfort, humiliation, and emotional trauma, which remains with the person throughout his life. It verges almost to an injustice done to a person for no fault of his."

In February 2019, the complainant Shameem Uddin booked a Kuwait Airways ticket for a Delhi-Kuwait-London flight. However, on reaching Kuwait, the airline did not allow him to board the flight to London, citing a ‘poor profile’ on the advice of the Airline Liaison Office (ALO). The ALO was a representative of the Embassy of the United Kingdom at the Kuwait International Airport for Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

Later, the complainant purchased an Indian Airlines ticket and traveled to Birmingham, United Kingdom without any issues. Subsequently, he filed a case against Kuwait Airways, demanding compensation of Rs. 55 lakh for harassment and deficiency in services.

The Commission observed that the carrier was duty-bound to take care of the passenger. It was not supposed to humiliate, harass, and cause mental agony to him.

It also noted that the airline failed to furnish adequate reasons for its refusal to allow him to board the onward flight. When he had obtained visas for the United States and the United Kingdom multiple times, it was not possible that his profile was suddenly poor in Kuwait and excellent otherwise.

The Bench said, "The perusal of the record suggests that the opposite parties have failed to furnish any cogent reasons/deportation order as promised to the complainant at the Delhi airport counter, despite his repeated requests. It is surprising how a reputed international airline can aboard a passenger and then deny boarding a connecting flight midway through his journey without any supporting documents to explain the reasons for taking such drastic measures."

To make matters worse, the complainant was subjected to inhumane treatment by the airline staff, who threatened him, asked him immoral questions, and did not allow him to use the washroom. Importantly, the ALO had no authority in a foreign jurisdiction to compel an airline to not carry a passenger.

The Commission remarked, "It is clear that the ALO can only advise in regard to the documentation of the passenger but the final decision whether or not to carry a passenger rests only with the airline. Therefore, the submission of the opposite parties that they got advice from the ALO of the UK Embassy that the complainant should not be carried is without leg and holds no merit.”

The forum noted the argument that the airline overbooked seats in anticipation of high sales during the season. Later, to hide their high profiteering, an unfair trade practice, it shifted the blame to the ALO.

Holding the airline responsible for denying boarding to a passenger without citing sufficient reasons amounting to deficiency in service, the Commission directed it to pay the complainant Rs. 5 lakh in compensation. The additional sums of Rs. 50,000 each (for litigation expenses and mental harassment) were also to be paid to him.

While advocate Mahmood Alam represented Shameem Uddin, Kuwait Airways was represented by advocate Deepika Gupta.