Passenger denied boarding over name mismatch; travel firm, airline told to pay ₹78,920

A Bengaluru consumer commission has directed an online travel company and an airline to jointly pay ₹78,920 to a passenger who was denied boarding at Newark Airport while returning to Delhi. The passenger, an elderly wheelchair user with medical needs, was reportedly stopped from boarding after airline staff detected a mismatch between his reservation details and their internal records.

His family had to purchase a replacement ticket at the airport counter for ₹71,241 to ensure that he could return home.

The consumer commission observed that the failure of the opposite parties to provide the promised refund amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

“…while the same ticket, same PNR, same passenger’s, with just a date change cleared immigration and went to the US on 8/6/2024 from Delhi with the same ticket, one of them was denied boarding in the return because of an internal error in the opposite party no 2 (airline) counter’s guest list that clearly a wrong name entry. Thereby, the act of the opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service,” the order read.

Passenger denied boarding over name mismatch

According to the complaint, the passenger’s daughter had booked round-trip tickets through an online travel portal for her parents to travel between Delhi and Newark.

Her father, whom the commission noted was a senior citizen with medical conditions and used a wheelchair, was denied boarding at Newark Airport during the return journey. Airline staff reportedly pointed to a discrepancy in his name on the passenger or guest list.

The family subsequently purchased another ticket at the airline counter for ₹71,241 so that the passenger could travel back to India.

The complainant later sought reimbursement of the additional ticket cost. She said the airline and the travel company agreed to refund the amount in two components— ₹65,920 towards the ticket cost and ₹5,321 representing the fare difference.

However, despite several follow-ups, the refund was allegedly not received.

Travel company cites failed bank transfer

The travel company disputed the allegations and said it had processed ₹65,490 after deducting a convenience fee. According to the company, the amount was initially credited to the complainant’s wallet after a bank transfer failed.

It further said that a link was later provided to the complainant to submit bank details so that the refund could be processed.

The company also argued that the passenger had been denied boarding by the airline and that it should not be held responsible for compensation because its role was limited to facilitating the flight-ticket booking.

Airline blames system alert

The airline also denied the allegations and said the boarding denial resulted from a system alert relating to a mismatch in the passenger’s name.

It relied on its policy requiring names of international passengers to correspond with their identity documents. The airline maintained that it had no control over how the passenger’s name had been entered during the booking process.

The airline also stated that a full refund had been approved and that the complainant had been advised to approach the travel agency for the refund.

Commission finds deficiency in service

The consumer commission said the documents on record established that both opposite parties had agreed to provide the refund but failed to actually return the amount.

It held that retaining the amount despite assurances that it would be refunded amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The commission therefore partly allowed the complaint and directed the two opposite parties to refund ₹65,920. In addition, they were ordered to pay ₹10,000 as compensation and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs.

The total amount directed to be paid to the complainant was ₹78,920.