The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Thai Airways Limited to pay a couple ₹3.85 lakh for spoiling their honeymoon trip to Auckland in 2013, by denying them boarding passes owing to a miscommunication.
The commission has directed the airlines to pay ₹2.14 lakh to the couple for the loss suffered in cancellation of the trip, along with ₹46,532 for ticket refund. The commission has further ordered the airlines to pay the couple ₹1 lakh towards mental harassment and ₹25,000 for cost of litigation.
K Jagose, lawyer for the Thai Airlines Limited, said that they are yet to receive a copy of the detailed order. “Only after studying the order would we be able to decide what to do next,” he said.
The couple had scheduled their visit to Auckland in New Zealand for their honeymoon in 2013 and had booked tickets, obtained visa and other relevant travel documents for their flight from Mumbai to Auckland via Bangkok. However, on December 19, 2013, when the couple reached the airport, the airlines gave them their boarding passes to Bangkok, but refused to give them boarding passes from Bangkok to Auckland. The couple alleged that they were not given any reason and had to cancel their trip. The couple then lodged a complaint with the airlines, following which the latter told them that they had received a message, “Not OK to Board”, for the woman from the New Zealand immigration department. This is why boarding passes for the couple from Bangkok to Auckland were not issued, the airline told them. The airline officials further told them that the remark in the system mentioned that the woman did not have a return ticket and was travelling on a one-way ticket. The couple had contended that the impediment, if any, for onward journey from Bangkok to Auckland could have been rectified by them if they were informed in advance.
The couple first approached the district forum in 2014, which rejected its plea in 2017. They then approached the commission in 2018. The commission observed that when it was not possible for the airline to arrange for the couple’s travel, they could have refused to issue air tickets. Once the airline has issued tickets, the commission noted, it was their obligation to make arrangements well in advance. The commission held that the airline could have obtained the information in advance and informed the couple, so that alternate arrangements could have been made
{{/usCountry}}The couple first approached the district forum in 2014, which rejected its plea in 2017. They then approached the commission in 2018. The commission observed that when it was not possible for the airline to arrange for the couple’s travel, they could have refused to issue air tickets. Once the airline has issued tickets, the commission noted, it was their obligation to make arrangements well in advance. The commission held that the airline could have obtained the information in advance and informed the couple, so that alternate arrangements could have been made
{{/usCountry}}