HYDERABAD: The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Etihad Airways to pay a compensation of Rs 3 lakh to Maddi Vijayabhasker Reddy, a diary consultant, from Vidyanagar for not allowing him to board in spite of the fact that he had a confirmed ticket and a boarding pass.
The complainant is a businessman and a dairy consultant and in relation to his business, had booked a flight ticket through the travel agent Suti Travels from Hyderabad to Entebbe (Uganda) on Etihad Airlines and a confirmed ticket was issued.
He reached the airport and after completing all the check-in formalities he was issued boarding passes for Sector Hyderabad to Abu Dhabi and for Sector Abu Dhabi to Entebbe. He had also checked in with two pieces of luggage for which baggage tags were also issued.
After the check-in formalities, one of the agents who claimed to be working for Etihad Airways asked the complainant to give his boarding pass. Though the time was running out, the agent did not return the boarding pass.
In spite of several requests to the agent to return the boarding pass, he failed to do so and in spite of making a request to speak to any of the duty managers or any senior associate the same was not heeded to.
Though the complainant’s boarding sequence number was 59 and the capacity of the flight was 250, he was denied boarding.
When the complainant questioned that though the passengers who checked in after him were permitted to board the flight the complainant was denied the same, the duty manager, Etihad Airlines replied stating that the complainant had no authority to ask for an airline manifest and it was the sole discretion of the airlines to offload any passenger in case of over-bookings and that the complainant would be accommodated in the next available flight.
This act of the airlines in offloading the complainant in spite of having a confirmed ticket and boarding passes and whereas the other passengers who checked in subsequently were permitted to board caused severe embarrassment, humiliation and trauma to the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service, it was argued.
Considering the fact that denying boarding might have certainly caused inconvenience, and hardship and might have also resulted in rescheduling all other assignments and work apart from the humiliation and mental agony, the forum stated Rs 3 lakh to be a reasonable amount to recompense the complainant.