NEW DELHI: The Chandigarh state consumer commission has upheld an order holding Emirates Airlines and travel portal Yatra Online liable after a man and his wife were denied boarding on a flight to Italy during floods in Dubai. The commission found that the passengers were not informed about the disruption in advance or offered alternative arrangements. It upheld directions to the companies to pay Rs 1.88 lakh and Rs 10,000 towards compensation and litigation costs.In its order dated October 28, 2026, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, dismissed Emirates Airlines’ appeal against the district commission’s order dated May 4, 2026, holding both companies jointly and severally liable.
Why were passengers denied boarding?
According to the commission order, Raghav Jain, a Chandigarh resident, booked tickets for himself and his wife through Yatra Online for travel from New Delhi to Milan via Dubai on April 19, 2024. Their return journey was scheduled from Thira, Greece, to New Delhi via Dubai on May 10. He paid Rs 1,45,384.99 for the booking.Jain alleged that when they reached Delhi airport on April 19, they were denied boarding because of flight disruptions caused by floods and adverse weather conditions in Dubai. He said neither company had informed them sufficiently in advance or arranged an alternative flight.He claimed that he was forced to buy last-minute tickets on Saudia Airlines for Rs 2,13,103.87. He also alleged that he lost a day’s business opportunities and Rs 23,600 paid towards prepaid accommodation.The complainant further alleged that Yatra failed to reissue their return tickets despite repeated follow-ups. He said the companies initially indicated that Rs 54,938.50 would be refunded but later reduced the amount to Rs 24,582. He approached the consumer commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
What did Emirates say
The Emirates attributed the disruption to unprecedented floods and storms in Dubai between April 14 and 19, 2024, which had left thousands of passengers stranded at the airport.It argued that public notices about restrictions on transit passengers had been issued through social media, its website and other online platforms, given the circumstances, individually informing every affected passenger was not feasible.The airline maintained that the restrictions were imposed for passenger safety and convenience and sought dismissal of the complaint.Yatra’s defence was struck off by the district commission on November 12, 2024, for failing to file its written version within the prescribed period.
Commission’s finding
The bench of president Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and member Preetinder Singh said adverse weather conditions could explain flight disruptions but did not absolve the airline of its responsibility to inform passengers and arrange suitable alternatives.It noted that Jain and his wife were informed about the disruption on April 19, the day of travel, when they had already reached Delhi airport. Emirates failed to establish that they were informed earlier or offered an alternative flight.“The issuance of general public notices, without evidence of effective communication concerning the complainant’s booking, does not displace these findings,” the commission observed.It also noted that the airline itself had stated that floods and storms had affected Dubai from April 14. However, the embassy advisory relied upon by Emirates was issued only on April 19.The bench said that had the couple been informed on April 14 or 15, they could have made alternative arrangements and avoided the last-minute inconvenience and additional expenditure.“The failure to establish timely intimation, despite the commencement of the adverse weather conditions several days before the scheduled journey, consequently resulted in avoidable mental agony and harassment to the complainant and his wife,” it said.The commission found that the district commission had correctly calculated the additional expenditure at Rs 1,88,521.87 after deducting the Rs 24,582 refund from the cost of alternative tickets. It found no legal infirmity warranting interference.
Final order
The state commission dismissed Emirates’ appeal and upheld the directions requiring both companies, jointly and severally, to pay:
- Rs 1,88,521.87 towards additional expenditure on alternative tickets, with 9 percent annual interest from the date of filing the complaint until payment.
- Rs 10,000 towards mental agony, harassment and litigation costs.
The district commission had stipulated that failure to comply within 45 days of receiving its certified copy would attract 12 percent annual penal interest on the principal amounts from the expiry of the deadline until payment. The state commission dismissed the appeal without imposing additional costs.
