The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission held that the onus lies on Air India to inform Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Member of Parliament, about change in flight timings, and thereby, directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 for harassment, mental agony and litigation cost.

In October, 2019, Dr. Subramanian Swamy was supposed to go to Shimla from Delhi for a lecture organized by the students of Himachal Pradesh University.

The Coram of President Justice Inder Singh Mehta and Member Partap Singh Thakur observed, “Onus lies upon the respondents/Air India to inform the passenger pertaining to flight's timing but respondents/Air India have failed to discharge its onus by leading cogent and convincing evidence.”

Advocate Ajay Jagga represented the Appellant, while Advocate Sanjay Sharma represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

The Complainant Rohit Bhagwat booked a ticket from Delhi to Shimla in the name of Dr. Subramanian Swamy and as per the ticket, the time of departure of flight was 7:50 AM. When Dr. Subramanian Swamy reached Delhi Airport to board the flight, it was informed to him that flight had already departed at 6:50 AM.

Thereafter, another ticket was purchased by him at his own cost to reach Chandigarh and from Chandigarh a special Chopper was arranged as he was supposed to preside over the Lecture which was organized by the students of Himachal Pradesh University. On account of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of Air India, the complaint was filed; however, the same was dismissed by the District Commission.

It was contended that the Complainant does not fall under the definition of a consumer, as he only purchased the ticket in the name of Dr. Swamy. It was also submitted that all the passengers were intimated on their mobile phones as well as e-mail regarding the change in timing of the flight.

Commission’s Observation

With regard to the contention that the Complainant was not Consumer as the ticket was brought in the name of another person, the State Commission noted that it was the admitted case of Air India that the ticket was purchased by the complainant and payment was made by the complainant himself, therefore, the complainant is a Consumer, as ticket was purchased by the complainant himself and he is asking the relief to refund the ticket amount which has been paid by him and inconvenience was caused to him and his associates for no fault on their part.

Pertinently, the State Commission pointed out that Air India failed to examine its best possible witness, a Special Handling Unit Staff member, who had allegedly called Dr. Swamy to confirm his arrival in order to provide him the protocol being an Member of Parliament but Mr. Swamy replied that he was not able to catch the respective flight.

“Therefore, aforesaid plea of the respondents/opposite parties looses its significance in absence of affidavit of Ms.Pooja.”, observed the State Commission.

The State Commission also underscored that no call records have been placed on record by Air India to show that they had made numerous calls to passenger Dr. Swamy.

The State Commission held, “Onus lies upon the respondents/Air India to inform the passenger pertaining to flight's timing but respondents/Air India have failed to discharge its onus by leading cogent and convincing evidence.”

Henceforth, the State Commission directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the Complainant as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation cost. Accordingly, the Appeal was disposed of.

Cause Title: Rohit Bhagwat V. Air India Airways

Click here to read/download Order


Himachal Pradesh State Consumer CommissionJustice Inderjeet Singh

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.