Advertisement
In this episode of Prop Personalities, we sit down with Hars...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Welcome to Prop Personalities by Prop News Time - a podcast ...
Airports play a much bigger role than just enabling travel -...
Why does the same hotel brand operate multiple properties in...
A Mumbai consumer court has directed Go Airlines (later rebranded as Go First) to refund INR 63,161 with 18 per cent annual interest and pay additional compensation after ruling that misrepresenting a cancelled flight as rescheduled and marking passengers as no-shows constituted unfair trade practice. The case relates to a 2019 Goa-Chandigarh flight booking cancelled hours before departure. The airline had denied a cash refund, offering only a credit shell while citing regulatory exemptions. The commission rejected this defence, noting that the airline had itself communicated the cancellation. It also awarded INR 25,000 as compensation and INR 20,000 towards litigation costs, holding the airline liable for deficiency in service.
A district consumer court in Mumbai has directed Go Airlines, later rebranded as Go First, to refund INR 63,161 along with 18 per cent annual interest and pay compensation to a passenger, holding that misrepresenting a cancelled flight as rescheduled and marking travellers as no-shows constituted an unfair trade practice. Advertisement
The ruling, delivered in the past month by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, arose from a complaint filed by a scientific officer with the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, who had booked group tickets for a Goa to Chandigarh flight scheduled for late December 2019. According to the complaint, the airline informed the passenger just three hours before departure via SMS and email that the flight had been cancelled, offering a choice between a full refund or rescheduling.
Facing urgency to reach Chandigarh, the complainant proceeded to book an alternative flight at a cost of INR 97,566, significantly higher than the original ticket price. However, when he later sought a refund from Go Airlines, the carrier claimed that the flight had been rescheduled rather than cancelled and categorised the passengers as no-shows. Instead of processing a refund, the airline offered a restrictive credit shell, which the complainant contested.
In its submission before the commission, the airline cited Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) regulations, arguing that it was not liable to provide compensation in cases of cancellations or delays caused by force majeure or circumstances beyond its control. The commission, however, rejected this argument, observing that the airline's own communication on the day of travel explicitly described the flight as cancelled.
The bench, led by President Pradeep Kadu and Member Gauri Kapse, held that compelling a passenger to accept a credit shell after opting for a refund was arbitrary and not in line with established norms. It further noted that the airline's shifting stance from cancellation to rescheduling and subsequently labelling passengers as no-shows violated DGCA guidelines and amounted to an unfair trade practice.
The commission concluded that the airline was liable for deficiency in service and directed it to refund the ticket amount with interest calculated from the date of travel. In addition to the refund, the airline has been ordered to pay INR 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience caused to the passenger, along with INR 20,000 towards litigation expenses.
The order underscores the obligations of airlines to adhere to transparent communication and regulatory norms in handling flight disruptions, particularly in cases involving cancellations and passenger refunds.
Source - PTI
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
