Air India cancelled flight, passengers left stranded; commission orders Rs 1.34L payout

NEW DELHI: The Chandigarh state consumer commission has upheld an order directing a travel agency and Air India to refund Rs 1.08 lakh to a passenger whose daughter and two other women were left stranded after their connecting flight to Toronto was cancelled.

The commission also upheld Rs 15,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 litigation costs, finding that the companies had failed to refund the amount they were liable to return.In an October 7, 2026, order, the commission dismissed the travels’ appeal against the district commission’s decision, holding that withholding part of the refund despite cancellation of the connecting flight amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

What was the case about?

As per the commission order, the complainant had booked three air tickets through Thakural Travels for her daughter, Drishiti, and two other passengers, Neha Devi and Deepankshi, to travel from Amritsar to Toronto via New Delhi on April 15 and 16, 2024.The complainant paid Rs 4,75,500 for the tickets, along with extra baggage charges and seat reservation fees. The three passengers boarded their scheduled flight from Amritsar to New Delhi on April 15, 2024.

After reaching Delhi, they were to board a connecting Air India flight to Toronto at 3.45 am on April 16.However, Air India rescheduled the connecting flight at the last moment and subsequently cancelled it. The complainant alleged that the passengers were left waiting at the airport without a valid explanation for the cancellation.With no other option, the complainant booked fresh tickets for the three passengers on another airline, paying Rs 4,37,400.

She later sought a refund from Air India for the cancelled flight and the additional baggage charges.Air India informed her that the electronic miscellaneous document associated with the booking had been partially used and was non-refundable. It subsequently directed her to approach the travel agent through which the tickets had been booked.The complainant then approached Thakural Travels, which agreed to refund Rs 1.27 lakh for each passenger after deducting Rs 13,000 in processing charges.

The agency issued three cheques totalling Rs 3.81 lakh. Air India also refunded Rs 9,951 towards seat reservation charges.The complainant alleged that Rs 1,24,327 remained unpaid despite repeated requests. She approached the district consumer commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.However, the travel agency contested the complaint, arguing that the connecting flight had been affected by tensions between Iran and Israel, which led to disruption of the air route to Toronto.

It claimed that it had offered to reschedule the passengers’ journey and advised the complainant to get the tickets stamped as “nil” at the Air India counter to facilitate a full refund.The travel agency also argued that the tickets were non-refundable and that it had processed the partial refund without delay after receiving the amount through the intermediary agencies.Riya Travels and Tours India Pvt Ltd, the other travel agency involved in the booking chain, argued that it had issued the tickets and processed the cancellation and refund based on instructions from another travel agent.

It denied any deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the complaint.Air India’s defence before the district commission was struck off after it failed to file its reply within the prescribed period.

Consumer court finding

The bench comprising President Padma Pandey and member Rajesh K Arya examined the evidence and the record before dismissing Thakural Travels’ appeal.The commission noted that the passengers had boarded the Amritsar-Delhi flight but their connecting flight to Toronto was cancelled at the last moment.

It also took into account the additional expenditure incurred by the complainant to arrange alternative travel.“The facts are not in dispute that the complainant had booked three air tickets through OP-2 for travel from Amritsar to Toronto via New Delhi, paying a total sum of Rs.5,15,278/- including baggage and seat reservation charges. The passengers boarded the Amritsar–Delhi flight but the connecting flight to Toronto was cancelled at the last moment without assigning any valid reason, compelling the complainant to purchase fresh tickets from another airline for Rs.4,37,400/-,” the commission observed.The bench rejected the argument that geopolitical tensions justified withholding the refund. It noted that the district commission had already accounted for the portion of the journey that had been completed and the applicable service charges while calculating the amount payable.“The contention of the appellant that the cancellation was due to geopolitical tensions and that partial refund was justified, does not absolve them of liability towards the consumer,” the commission said.It further observed that the passengers had been left at the airport at odd hours and the complainant had been forced to incur additional expenses. The district commission had taken a balanced view by excluding amounts that were not refundable and granting relief for the amount that had been unjustly withheld.The commission also rejected Thakural Travels’ contention that the district commission had not established any deficiency in service on its part.

It noted that the district commission had specifically recorded a finding of deficiency against Air India and Thakural Travels.“We find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The findings are well-reasoned, based on evidence, and call for no interference,” the bench held.It concluded that the appeal had no merit and dismissed it.

Final order

In its October 7, 2026, order, the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the district commission’s directions requiring Air India and Thakural Travels to:

The district commission had directed compliance within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of its order. If the companies failed to comply within that period, the specified principal amounts would attract 12 percent annual simple interest from the expiry of the 45-day period until payment. The state commission dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.