The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi recently directed Air India to pay a senior citizen full refund and Rs 20 lakh compensation for subjecting him to travel on a defective seat in a for 15-hour long flight from San Francisco to New Delhi.
This judgement by NCDRC was delivered in a case filed by Justice Rajesh Chandra, aged 73, from Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, against Air India for deficiency in service.
As per the submission, Justice Chandra and his wife booked economy class tickets on Air India, paying Rs 1.8 lakh each, for their travel from New Delhi to San Francisco and back. However, due to his medical condition of cervical spondylosis, which he has had since 1978, and along with sciatica, he decided to upgrade both tickets from economy class to business class by paying an additional amount of Rs 1.23 lakh each.
During his return journey on September 22, 2022, he was allotted seat No. 08D in the business class on Air India flight AI-174. However, it turned out to be a defective and non-reclining seat. Realising this, he soon raised this issue with the cabin crew, but it remained unresolved despite their best efforts.
Facing extreme discomfort, he requested the cabin crew to change his seat and provide him with an alternative. However, the crew allegedly informed him that there were no vacant seats in either business class or first-class cabins. He, consequently completed the 15-hour-long flight in severe discomfort, alleging that the ordeal worsened his health.
Thus Chandra claimed that when he arrived in Delhi, he had to undergo medical treatment, including consultation with an orthopedic surgeon, medication, bed rest, and physiotherapy.
Feeling aggrieved, Chandra filed a representation on September 25, 2022, before the Cabinet Secretariat (Directorate of Public Grievances), Government of India. This representation was forwarded to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, but unfortunately, he did not get any response.
Chandra subsequently filed a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, with the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission, Lucknow (case no. 47/2023). He alleged that despite paying a substantial upgrade fee for a business class seat, Air India delivered inadequate service.
However, Air India’s lawyers claimed that the official records contained no evidence of a malfunctioning seat or any non-cooperation by the crew; neither the cabin log nor the CCIC report documented such an incident.
On January 16, 2024, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, passed an order in his (Chandra’s) favour by ordering Air India to refund the ticket price and pay Rs 20 lakh in compensation and Rs 20,000 in costs to him. However, Chandra felt that the compensation was inadequate to the amount of pain he suffered due to the bad business class seat allotted to him, so he filed an appeal before the NCDRC, New Delhi.
On June 12, 2026, the NCDRC upheld the UP State Consumer Commission’s order, affirming that Air India had indeed provided a deficient service; however, the compensation amount remained unchanged.
Before the NCDRC, Air India’s lawyers argued that the seat was not defective and that the aircraft in which Chandra travelled had undergone the mandatory technical inspection before the flight. Air India’s lawyers also contended that Chandra’s medical condition was pre-existing and long-standing, and therefore, could not be attributed to the seat or airline service.
NCDRC’s order discussion
A summary of the judgement (FA 152 of 2024) is as follows:
Air India’s lawyers had argued that Chandra’s complaint on the ground of ‘unfair contract’ under Section 2(46) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, cannot be accepted.
The NCDRC said: “A mere incorrect nomenclature or reference to a particular statutory provision in the complaint cannot defeat a substantive consumer grievance if the facts pleaded disclose a clear case of deficiency in service.”
The NCDRC said that the substance of the complaint, as pleaded by Chandra in his complaint, is that Air India, despite charging substantial additional consideration for business class travel, failed to provide the very basic amenity attached to such upgraded service, namely a properly functioning reclining seat on a long-haul international flight, thereby causing serious inconvenience, discomfort and hardship to Chandra.
The NCDRC said: “Such allegations squarely fall within the ambit of ‘deficiency in service’ under the Act and were rightly entertained by the State Commission (UP)” On merits, the NCDRC said that they find no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the UP State Commission.
The NCDRC also observed that the grievance of allotment of a defective non-reclining business-class seat during a long international journey was specifically pleaded and supported by documentary material.
Regarding the compensation, the NCDRC said that under the Consumer Protection law, the compensation awarded must be fair and proportionate to the injury suffered and thus upheld the Rs 20 lakh compensation amount awarded by the UP State Consumer Commission.
Accordingly, both Chandra’s (for higher compensation) and Air India’s appeals were dismissed, and the UP State Consumer Commission’s order was affirmed.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 