📷 Image: TOI City (via NewsData)
Travel
Delhi Consumer Court Orders Airline to Pay Rs 71,587 for Missed Flight
✍️ TOI City
🗓 07 Nov 2026, 12:48 PM
👁 6
A Delhi consumer commission has directed an airline to compensate a passenger Rs 71,587 after he missed his flight due to alleged delays by ground staff.
A consumer commission in Delhi has ordered an airline to pay a compensation of Rs 71,587 to a passenger who missed his scheduled flight. The ruling comes after the passenger alleged that delays caused by the airline's ground staff at the check-in counter were the primary reason for his inability to board the aircraft.
The complainant stated that he had arrived at the airport early enough to complete the check-in process. However, due to the delays attributed to the ground staff, he was unable to check in on time and consequently missed his flight. As a result, he was forced to purchase a new ticket to continue his journey, incurring additional financial costs.
During the proceedings, the airline attempted to defend itself by claiming that the passenger was responsible for the delay. However, the commission found the airline's claims unsubstantiated. The airline failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as CCTV footage, to prove that the passenger had arrived late or that the delay was not due to their staff's actions.
Based on the lack of evidence from the airline and the passenger's claim of early arrival, the commission directed the airline to compensate the passenger for the extra costs incurred. The decision highlights the importance of airlines providing concrete proof in consumer disputes regarding service delays.
The complainant stated that he had arrived at the airport early enough to complete the check-in process. However, due to the delays attributed to the ground staff, he was unable to check in on time and consequently missed his flight. As a result, he was forced to purchase a new ticket to continue his journey, incurring additional financial costs.
During the proceedings, the airline attempted to defend itself by claiming that the passenger was responsible for the delay. However, the commission found the airline's claims unsubstantiated. The airline failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as CCTV footage, to prove that the passenger had arrived late or that the delay was not due to their staff's actions.
Based on the lack of evidence from the airline and the passenger's claim of early arrival, the commission directed the airline to compensate the passenger for the extra costs incurred. The decision highlights the importance of airlines providing concrete proof in consumer disputes regarding service delays.