Mumbai: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai (Suburban) has ordered budget airline SpiceJet to pay ₹25,000 in compensation to a senior citizen passenger for issuing an incorrect ticket during a rerouted journey in December 2020. The commission also awarded ₹5,000 towards litigation costs, citing “deficient service and negligent behaviour” on the airline’s part that resulted in significant mental and financial hardship to the passenger.
The order, passed on June 17, noted that the complainant—an elderly resident of Ghatkopar—had originally booked a SpiceJet flight from Mumbai to Darbhanga on December 5, 2020, with a return on December 7. While the outbound flight was completed, the return leg was cancelled due to bad weather—an act attributed to a decision by Air Traffic Control (ATC) in the interest of passenger safety.
The commission acknowledged that the flight cancellation was beyond the airline’s control. However, it held the carrier responsible for the incorrect rebooking it made in response to the passenger’s request for an alternative arrangement.
The passenger, who had to appear for an online PhD examination in Mumbai on December 8, requested SpiceJet to make alternative travel arrangements after his original return flight was cancelled. The airline then issued a ticket routing him from Patna to Kolkata and then to Mumbai. However, upon arriving at Patna airport, he was informed that the connecting flight from Kolkata to Mumbai was scheduled to depart before his expected arrival in Kolkata—rendering the entire itinerary unfeasible.
The mishap forced the passenger to purchase a new ticket on his own for a flight the following morning. As a result, he arrived in Mumbai late and missed his online examination. He then filed a complaint alleging unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. He sought a refund of ₹14,577, compensation of ₹2 lakh for mental agony, and ₹25,000 as litigation expenses.
SpiceJet argued in its defence that the initial flight cancellation was due to inclement weather and therefore beyond its control, as covered under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. It also contended that the rebooking was made without charging the passenger and the full amount had been refunded through the booking agency.
While the commission accepted that the flight cancellation had valid grounds and that the airline had made efforts to rebook the complainant, it pointed out that the ticket provided was incorrect and ultimately led to the complainant missing his examination and suffering further losses.
The commission also remarked that the complainant shared partial blame, stating, “Had the complainant checked the ticket when it was issued, the mistake could have been rectified on the spot.” However, it concluded that the primary fault lay with the airline, stating, “The opposite party is guilty of deficient service and negligent behaviour by issuing an incorrect ticket, which threw the complainant into unwarranted mental harassment.”
Although SpiceJet later reimbursed the complainant voluntarily for the financial loss incurred, the commission ruled that compensation was still justified given the emotional and practical inconvenience caused.
Accordingly, the airline has been directed to pay ₹25,000 for mental agony and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
With PTI inputs