Stranded at Heathrow after airline denies boarding, Bengaluru PhD scholar wins Rs 1.66 lakh

The 23-year-old scholar was travelling from Canada to India in August 2024 when a flight cancellation disrupted her journey. She alleged that despite reaching Heathrow in time for her connecting flight to Bengaluru, the airline refused to issue her a boarding pass and failed to arrange alternative travel or provide adequate assistance. According to The Indian Express, the Bengaluru I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed the order on October 8.

The bench comprised president Syed Anser Kaleem and members Jyothi N and Renukadevi Deshpande. The commission held that the airline had failed to provide proper service to the passenger and was liable to refund the ticket amount. However, it dismissed the complaint against the online travel agency through which the ticket was booked and another airline involved in the disrupted journey. The ticket was booked through an online travel agency on January 17, 2024.

Her itinerary included flights from Saskatoon to Toronto, followed by a connecting journey through Heathrow to Bengaluru. According to the complaint filed by her father, Sivakumar N, who acted as her general power of attorney holder, the scholar reached Saskatoon airport at around 4 am on August 1 and was informed that her flight had been cancelled. The operating airline subsequently rerouted her journey through Calgary and London, with her luggage tagged to Bengaluru.

She was told to obtain her boarding pass at Heathrow for the onward flight to India. Scholar alleges airline refused boarding pass at Heathrow The scholar alleged that when she reached Heathrow, the airline refused to issue her boarding pass, citing booking-related issues. She claimed that she had arrived around two hours and 45 minutes before the scheduled departure. According to the complaint, the airline did not arrange an alternative flight, accommodation or adequate assistance.

The passenger also faced difficulties involving immigration and her luggage, eventually obtaining a visa valid for 24 hours until August 3, 2024. With her journey disrupted, she sought financial help from a friend in Canada and purchased another ticket for Rs 1,65,926. She eventually reached Bengaluru on August 4, 2024. She also purchased a separate ticket to return to Canada for the same stated amount.

These additional travel expenses formed part of her claim but were not awarded by the commission. Her father subsequently wrote to the airline on October 10, 2024, seeking redressal for the losses suffered. It claimed that she had been marked a "no-show" and that her onward and return reservations were cancelled in accordance with its conditions of carriage. The commission also noted that the airline had not produced documents to establish that the passenger had failed to report at check-in.

It observed that an airline was expected to provide appropriate assistance to a passenger attempting to board a connecting flight after travelling from Canada to London. The commission also addressed the importance of helping passengers avoid difficulties involving immigration, accommodation, food and other essential needs when disruptions occur at international airports. The airline had apologised and offered the passenger a £50 electronic voucher, which she rejected.

Commission finds deficiency in service The passenger's complaint was filed on May 5, 2025, after a legal notice dated January 9, 2025. The commission found that the airline had failed to establish its claim that the passenger was a no-show and held that the handling of her disrupted journey amounted to deficiency in service. It directed the airline to refund Rs 1,38,945 within 30 days of the order.

If the airline fails to comply, the amount will carry interest at 6.5% per annum from the date the complaint was filed until realisation. The commission also ordered the airline to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 2,000 towards the costs of the proceedings. The airline was directed to comply within 30 days of receiving the order and submit a compliance report within 45 days. The complaint against the online travel agency was dismissed, with the commission finding no deficiency in service on its part. The complaint against the other airline was also dismissed, as it had arranged an alternative route following the initial flight cancellation.