Комиссия по защите прав потребителей обязала авиакомпанию Air India Express вернуть деньги и выплатить компенсацию пассажиру из-за ошибки с багажом

Holding mishandling by Air India Express crew of a special equipment booked by a Sullia taluk-based consumer as deficiency of service, the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the airline to refund ₹2,000 that it had taken from the consumer as special equipment handling fee. In addition, the airlines was told to pay a compensation of ₹20,000 towards deficiency of service, mental agony and inconvenience, and ₹5,000 towards cost of litigation, to N. G. Sushanth, a resident of Hariharapallatadka in Sullia taluk of Dakshina Kannada district in Karnataka. Mr. Sushanth travelled in an Air India Express flight from Chennai to Mangaluru on July 27, 2025. He had paid an additional ₹2,000 as special handling fee for his sporting equipment worth ₹3 lakh that he brought from Chennai. On arrival at Mangaluru airport, he learnt that his expensive sports equipment was placed on the baggage carousel, along with regular luggage. This was a direct contravention of the special equipment handling protocol for which he had paid a separate fee. When he questioned the airline staff at the airport, they replied that they were unaware about booking of special equipment on the flight. He sent a mail to the airline on July 31, 2025, and sought refund of the special handling fees. On the same day, Mr. Sushanth got a reply that the case was closed. He approached the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Commission seeking refund of special handling fees, and compensation for mental agony. In defence, the airlines contended before the consumer commission that prevailing aviation norms do not require any extended or special screening of arriving baggage, including special items, and it is delivered through the regular baggage belt system. Hence, placing consumer’s equipment in regular baggage did not constitute violation of the special handling facility. The airline’s ground staff at the airport noticed the consumer’s equipment on the arrival belt, removed it by hand to prevent unnecessary rotation or contact with other baggage. No damage, wear and tear, or loss was reported, recorded, or observed at the time of delivery of the equipment to the consumer, the airline stated. On August 31, District Consumer Commission President Somashekarappa K. Handigol and member Sharadamma H.G., directed the airline to refund ₹2,000 to Mr. Sushanth within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.