DCRDC directs Etihad Airways to refund fare and compensate couple for flight booked during Covid-19

DCRDC directs Etihad Airways to refund fare and compensate couple for flight booked during Covid-19

They were compelled to cancel travel plans in compliance with government directives

The Hyderabad, Telangana bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III (DCRDC) has held Etihad Airways liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The airline had failed to refund the airfare to a couple following the cancellation of flights due to the Covid-19 restrictions.

The bench of Ram Gopal Reddy (President), J Shyamala (Member), and R Narayan Reddy (Member) directed Etihad to refund the amount of Rs.2,76,709 and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000 along with Rs.5,000 as litigation costs to the complainants.

A couple Mayur Mullaguri and Chaitanya Chand Chandra (complainants), accustomed to frequent international travel during vacations, planned a trip to the United States using the services of Etihad Airways.

The arrangements were confirmed by the airline via an email. However, the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic led to widespread lockdowns across various countries, including India, from 25 March 2020 to 31 May 2020. Consequently, the couple was compelled to cancel their travel plans in compliance with government directives.

Despite the lockdown and the ensuing travel restrictions, Etihad failed to refund the airfare, contravening government guidelines. The complainants made repeated attempts to seek reimbursement or rescheduling of their tickets but received no help from the airline.

Etihad later offered them an option to rebook the flights before 30 September 2020 for travel by 30 April 2021 with waived change penalties and applicable fare difference. However, due to continued restrictions on international travel to the US until late November 2021, and Etihad's delayed resumption of flights to the US until early 2022, the complainants found it impossible to accept the offer.

In November 2021, after reading a local news report on the reopening of US borders for international travel, the couple attempted to contact Etihad's Customer Care department several times but did not receive any response.

Meanwhile, their PNR (Passenger Name Record) remained blocked and inactive until 03 January 2022, preventing them from lodging any further complaints. Again, on approaching the airline, no satisfactory response was provided.

Feeling aggrieved, the couple approached the DCDRC and filed a consumer complaint against Etihad. However, the airline did not appear before the District Commission.

The DCRDC noted that the complainants made several attempts to communicate with the airline via Twitter (now X) and emails, requesting a refund due to ticket cancellations but Etihad failed to address the issue. Instead, it repeatedly directed them to contact their Customer Care department or stated they would revert. Still, it neither refunded the amount nor resolved the issue.

The District Commission referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Pravasi Legal Cell & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors case, wherein the apex court issued directives regarding refunds for cancelled flights during the Covid-19 lockdown. The court had held that the airlines should make all endeavors to refund the collected amount within 15 days or provide a credit shell equivalent to the fare if it was unable to do so due to financial distress.

Thus, the DCRDC held that despite clear directives from the Director General of Civil Aviation and orders from the top court, Etihad failed to refund the flight charges to the complainants. Moreover, the airline closed the PNR without resolving the issue. It was, therefore, held liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

The District Commission ordered Etihad to refund the complainants the amount of Rs.2,76,709 along with interest at 12 percent per annum. It was further directed to compensate the couple by paying Rs.50,000 for the mental agony suffered by them and Rs.5,000 as litigation costs.