On January 14, 2026, the New Delhi District Consumer Commission ordered an airline to pay compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh to a man and his daughter. He complained about broken seats, dirty toilets and other problems on his 15-hour flight to New York. The Consumer Commission said that the airline gave him poor service after charging him Rs 2.7 lakh for the ticket. Specific details of the complaint reveal that she and her daughter had booked round-trip tickets from India to New York in economy class through MakeMyTrip. He went to New York on September 6, 2023 and returned to India on September 13, 2023. He spent a total of Rs 2,73,108 on these tickets. Additionally, he paid Rs 45,000 more to change the date of his daughter’s travel (the ticket was preponed from September 20, 2023, to September 6, 2023).
What was the consumer’s complaint?
According to his complaint, his experience with the airline was very bad, reports ET. He described the condition of the flight as very bad and bad. They had booked economy class seats and expected a comfortable journey, but their seats were broken, the backrest buttons did not work and the call button for the flight attendant was also broken, making it impossible to get help.
Additionally, he claimed that the monitor screens were also defective. What was worse was that the aircraft smelled bad and no steps were taken to fix it. The flight lasted about 15 hours and perfume or air freshener was not used even once in the entire time. He also submitted photographs of the condition of the flight.
Additionally, he was shocked to see the condition of the washrooms as they were dirty, worse than public toilets, and did not even have basic toilet spray. The smell was unbearable. The service was very poor, mismanagement was clearly visible in the quality of food, tea was cold, there was no sugar, stirrer was not provided and the overall service of the entire staff was absolutely poor.
She also claimed that the staff were rude and failed to address any of her concerns. Ultimately, the staff ignored him and did not respond. He argued that these services were included in the ticket price.
On 3 and 9 November 2023, he sent a legal notice to the airline but did not receive any response. Then he filed this complaint against the airline in the consumer court.
Airline’s response
The airline replied that they have followed the standard procedure according to which every aircraft carrier has to be thoroughly checked before departure so that there is no situation which may cause inconvenience to the passengers. According to the airline, their engineering team thoroughly inspected the carrier scheduled for their journey, and no significant issues were found.
Additionally, the airline reported that during check-in, she and her daughter approached staff and asked if their seats could be upgraded to business class, citing their loyalty as frequent flyers with their airline. The staff respectfully declined the request, and explained to the complainant and his daughter that they valued their loyalty, but an upgrade was not possible at the time as business class was completely full.
According to the airline, after boarding, the complainant and his daughter behaved differently from their initial behaviour, and falsely claimed that the personal television (PTV) system was down, even though they were hesitant in using it. The airline said that in-flight staff responded to the allegation in a loving manner, and helped the complainant and his daughter operate the PTV as per their convenience.
However, despite the staff’s efforts, the complainant and his daughter continued to ask for an upgrade, which the in-flight staff could not grant due to lack of vacant seats. The airline claimed that after finding no valid reason for the seat upgrade, the complainant and his daughter started saying that the seats were not comfortable and both the aircraft and the toilet smelled bad.
The airline also claimed that every aircraft is thoroughly cleaned after every trip and during flights when necessary. The airline also said that their in-flight crew were extremely helpful to the complainant and his daughter by showing empathy and ensuring that their needs were met. However, when they disembarked from the plane, the complainant and his daughter again contacted the in-flight crew, and said that the airline could upgrade them.
What was said during the decision?
Consumer Disputes held that the airline was guilty of deficiency in service, while acquitting the travel ticket company of any responsibility. The Consumer Commission accepted the complainant’s evidence, which included photographs and an unanswered legal notice.
The Consumer Commission also said that the airline failed to provide any specific or concrete response to serious allegations regarding poor facilities and service, and its silence in response to the legal notice went against it.
The Consumer Commission reiterated that under the Consumer Protection Act, airlines are service providers and passengers are consumers, and not providing essential amenities amounts to deficiency in service.
However, the Consumer Commission refused to order refund of the ticket cost as the passenger had completed the journey and availed the service. Instead, it awarded compensation of Rs 50,000 to the complainant and his daughter for mental distress, along with Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses, to be borne by the airline alone.
Order of New Delhi District Consumer Commission
The Consumer Commission said that the passenger and his daughter completed the first part of the journey from Delhi to New York on September 6, 2023 and returned on September 13, 2023. It was a long journey of 15 hours. The complainant sent a legal notice on 01.11.2023. The airline did not respond to the legal notice.
The Consumer Commission said that the legal notice contains all the allegations made in the present complaint case but OP-1 maintained silence. If there was no fault in the service of OP-1, OP-1 would definitely have given a sharp reaction. The Consumer Commission said that under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, an airline is a service provider and the passenger who has paid for the ticket is a consumer.
The Consumer Commission said that if the airline fails to provide essential facilities (such as food, water, AC, communication, accommodation, or information about delay/cancellation) under DGCA rules, it will amount to deficiency in service. The passenger can then claim for a refund and/or compensation.
The Consumer Commission said that during the debate, it asked the airline very clearly why it had given very vague answers to paragraphs 4 to 9 of the complaint, which made serious allegations on the poor facilities and service of the airline.
The Consumer Commission said that no satisfactory answer was given. The Consumer Commission said that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is of the view that the complainant would be entitled to compensation for the mental distress and for the non-provision of facilities by OP-1 (airline) despite charging a substantial amount.