The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed SpiceJet to pay a passenger ₹55,000 after determining that a burger and fries were an insufficient provision for a 14-hour flight delay. The order was passed last week by the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Mumbai Suburban), Pradeep Kadu, and member Gauri M. Kapse, with details becoming available on Monday.
The Commission stated that the delay was due to a technical fault and the airline could not evade its duty of care towards its passengers until the onward journey and the flight’s departure.
The Commission strongly criticized the airline’s actions, asserting that the airline cannot simply defend itself by stating that rescheduling, cancellations, and delays are common occurrences. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission emphasized that adequate arrangements for food, refreshments, water, and essential rest areas are necessary in such situations, and passengers must be provided with complete information. It is undeniable that passengers were only given a burger and fries during a delay exceeding 14 hours.
The Commission stated that since the airline failed to present facts related to a deficiency in service, there were sufficient grounds to believe that the arrangements made by it were inadequate. The complainant had booked a ticket on a SpiceJet flight from Dubai to Mumbai for July 27, 2024. However, this flight experienced significant delays.
According to the complaint, SpiceJet did not provide adequate facilities during this long delay and offered only a burger and fries once, which the complainant argued violated the guidelines of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), specifically the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR).
The complainant stated that these guidelines stipulate that airlines must provide food and refreshments to passengers based on the waiting time and, if necessary, arrange for hotel stays if a certain period of delay occurs.
SpiceJet argued that the delay was due to operational and technical reasons, and therefore, the airline was not in a position to do anything. It also cited provisions of the CAR that provide exemptions to airlines in extraordinary circumstances such as technical faults. After hearing both parties, the Commission said that if the airline claims it took all reasonable steps, it must prove it.
However, the Commission also stated that there were no sufficient and adequate grounds for the complainant’s claim for compensation of ₹4,00,000 for distress, stress, inconvenience, mental and physical fatigue. It said that the complainant did not present any details and evidence of the expenses incurred for the purchase of food, etc.
Considering the facts of the case, the Commission ruled that the passenger should receive compensation of ₹50,000 for the expenses and mental anguish. The Commission also directed the airline to pay ₹5,000 to the complainant as the cost of the lawsuit.
