Low visibility forces flight diversion; father-son who missed Chicago flight win Rs 1.4L compensation
Bengaluru: What began as a routine trip to Chicago soon spiralled into an overnight nightmare for Jayanagar residents, eventually leading to a legal battle.
The episode dates back to Jan 4, 2024, when 68-year-old Satish Nagarajan Iyengar and his 38-year-old son, Rupesh, booked Air India round-trip tickets between Bengaluru and Chicago for Rs 2.9 lakh. Their onward journey was scheduled for Jan 18, with the return flight planned for Jan 22.
On Jan 18, the duo checked in at Bengaluru airport and received two boarding passes each, while their baggage was tagged directly to Chicago. Their flight departed Bengaluru at 9.10pm and was slated to arrive in Delhi at 11.55pm, where they were to board a connecting flight to Chicago at 2.35am.
The flight was normal until it entered Delhi airspace, when the captain announced a diversion to Jaipur, citing low visibility. However, the duo contended that Delhi’s CAT IIIB-compliant runways were operational and the aircraft was equipped for landing, alleging the diversion occurred due to pilots lacking CAT IIIB certification.
The aircraft landed in Jaipur, where passengers waited for more than an hour while a CAT IIIB-certified crew was flown in. The flight then reached Delhi at 1.52am, leaving less than 45 minutes for the connection.
Despite assurances that they would make the connection, they were met with placards and escorted through a priority channel. However, they were made to wait more than 30 minutes, their baggage was returned and the Chicago leg was cancelled, citing late arrival of AI 808. Air India’s Integrated Operations Control Centre (IOCC) later confirmed seats were available but said boarding had closed.
For Satish, a senior citizen, the situation turned distressing. No food, water, seating or hotel accommodation was provided, nor any timeline for resolution. After a sleepless night at the airport, they booked a hotel at their own expense. The next morning, Air India issued tickets to Bengaluru and said reimbursement would be provided.
On Jan 21, they filed a refund request. On Feb 5, Air India confirmed a full refund within 7-14 days. However, by March 5, only Rs 2.4 lakh was credited, leaving Rs 55,328 pending. Despite acknowledgement and follow-ups, payment was not made. The issue was escalated to the ministry of civil aviation on July 26, but they received no response. The duo filed a consumer complaint on July 17, 2025.
In its defence, Air India cited operational and safety requirements for the diversion, stating low-visibility procedures were mandatory. It argued boarding had closed by the time they arrived at the gate, making acceptance impossible. It also said an alternative routing via London was offered but declined, contending that passengers who opted for a refund could not later claim additional damages.
On refunds, Air India stated that out of the total fare of Rs 1.5 lakh per ticket, in addition Rs 11,145 had been refunded for one ticket, while Rs 27,664 and Rs 16,519, respectively, remained under process or pending approval. The airline maintained that the delay in crediting the balance amounts was due to routine reconciliation and settlement procedures and not due to any mala fide intent.
After hearing both sides, the commission observed that the flight diversion was not due to weather alone but stemmed from the crew’s lack of CAT IIIB certification, an internal lapse that could not be treated as force majeure to escape liability. It held that DGCA exemption clauses could not justify leaving a senior citizen stranded overnight without food, water, rest or accommodation. The partial refund of Rs 2,43,774 was treated as acknowledgement of liability, making the withholding of Rs 55,328 indefensible. It also upheld Rs 33,186 as legitimate damages and concluded that Air India’s actions constituted a clear deficiency in service.
The commission bench, comprising president Ramachandra MS and members Nandini H Kumbhar and Savitha Airani, on April 29 ordered Air India to refund Rs 55,328 and pay Rs 33,186 for damages incurred at an interest at 6%. It also directed the airline to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, Rs 25,000 for pain and suffering, and Rs 10,000 in litigation costs.
On Jan 18, the duo checked in at Bengaluru airport and received two boarding passes each, while their baggage was tagged directly to Chicago. Their flight departed Bengaluru at 9.10pm and was slated to arrive in Delhi at 11.55pm, where they were to board a connecting flight to Chicago at 2.35am.
The flight was normal until it entered Delhi airspace, when the captain announced a diversion to Jaipur, citing low visibility. However, the duo contended that Delhi’s CAT IIIB-compliant runways were operational and the aircraft was equipped for landing, alleging the diversion occurred due to pilots lacking CAT IIIB certification.
The aircraft landed in Jaipur, where passengers waited for more than an hour while a CAT IIIB-certified crew was flown in. The flight then reached Delhi at 1.52am, leaving less than 45 minutes for the connection.
Despite assurances that they would make the connection, they were met with placards and escorted through a priority channel. However, they were made to wait more than 30 minutes, their baggage was returned and the Chicago leg was cancelled, citing late arrival of AI 808. Air India’s Integrated Operations Control Centre (IOCC) later confirmed seats were available but said boarding had closed.
For Satish, a senior citizen, the situation turned distressing. No food, water, seating or hotel accommodation was provided, nor any timeline for resolution. After a sleepless night at the airport, they booked a hotel at their own expense. The next morning, Air India issued tickets to Bengaluru and said reimbursement would be provided.
In its defence, Air India cited operational and safety requirements for the diversion, stating low-visibility procedures were mandatory. It argued boarding had closed by the time they arrived at the gate, making acceptance impossible. It also said an alternative routing via London was offered but declined, contending that passengers who opted for a refund could not later claim additional damages.
On refunds, Air India stated that out of the total fare of Rs 1.5 lakh per ticket, in addition Rs 11,145 had been refunded for one ticket, while Rs 27,664 and Rs 16,519, respectively, remained under process or pending approval. The airline maintained that the delay in crediting the balance amounts was due to routine reconciliation and settlement procedures and not due to any mala fide intent.
After hearing both sides, the commission observed that the flight diversion was not due to weather alone but stemmed from the crew’s lack of CAT IIIB certification, an internal lapse that could not be treated as force majeure to escape liability. It held that DGCA exemption clauses could not justify leaving a senior citizen stranded overnight without food, water, rest or accommodation. The partial refund of Rs 2,43,774 was treated as acknowledgement of liability, making the withholding of Rs 55,328 indefensible. It also upheld Rs 33,186 as legitimate damages and concluded that Air India’s actions constituted a clear deficiency in service.
The commission bench, comprising president Ramachandra MS and members Nandini H Kumbhar and Savitha Airani, on April 29 ordered Air India to refund Rs 55,328 and pay Rs 33,186 for damages incurred at an interest at 6%. It also directed the airline to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, Rs 25,000 for pain and suffering, and Rs 10,000 in litigation costs.
You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Bengaluru | Silver Rate in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru
Comments (1)
G
Gazi PeerMost Interacted
2 days ago
Not every traveler is lucky enough to receive compensation...Read More
Reply
1
Reply
end of article
In Bengaluru
- The Sisterhood of Travelling Strangers
- Devendra Fadnavis travels from Pune to Bengaluru in economy class amid Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s fuel-saving push
- Mapping no protection against SIR scrutiny: EC
- 7 of family die as tipper rams tractor near TB Dam
- Tax revamp cuts premium spirit prices by up to 23%
- No bail relief for Darshan, SC asks Karnataka to examine 60 key witnesses in 1 year
- JP Nagar to wake up to lively Sunday
Featured In City
- NEET paper leak: NSUI members protest outside NTA office in Delhi
- Wheels India’s FY26 topline crosses Rs 5k cr; plans Rs 280cr FY27 capex
- 'Darling, leaked papers for you': What Lucknow teacher told female student; viral audio sparks row
- The Sisterhood of Travelling Strangers
- 4-year-od dies as bus catches fire in Madhya Pradesh's Ujjain
- Arvind Kejriwal calls Goa his ‘lucky charm’ after Delhi high court judge recuses herself from excise policy case
- Theatre Review: Letters give voice to two star-crossed lovers
Photostories
- How to grow Mint endlessly in your balcony garden using kitchen scraps: Simple step-by-step guide for beginners
- Huma Qureshi brings Banaras to Cannes in royal purple saree with Riviera-inspired palm motifs
- 5 signs a mother is mentally exhausted
- National Dengue Day 2026: Doctors warn Dengue is now a year-round threat, and families are still missing early signs
- 6 delicious traditional Indian dishes made with rice flour
- 6 signs your child is ready for preschool
- Jannat Zubair's home, 'gilded' in gold and neutrals, is effortlessly luxurious: Artsy inspirations to take away
- 8 famous Indian street foods that were once royal dishes
- These forgotten Indian plants attract bees better than expensive flowers
- Art quote of the day by Pablo Picasso: “Painting is just another way of keeping a diary”
Videos
03:34 RG Kar Case Back In Spotlight As BJP MLA Ratna Debnath Calls Mamata Banerjee ‘Head Of Criminals’03:34 RG Kar Case Back In Spotlight As BJP MLA Ratna Debnath Calls Mamata Banerjee ‘Head Of Criminals’04:04 Delhi Court Grants Robert Vadra Bail In Shikohpur Land Deal Money Laundering Case,ED Probe Continues03:09 Mamata Banerjee Tells Leaders Free To Leave TMC, Vows To Rebuild Party After Bengal Poll Rout03:01 Jamiat Attacks Bhojshala Verdict, Says Ayodhya Judgment Opened Door To New Religious Site Disputes05:47 Liquor Row Turns Political In J&K: BJP Protests Outside Omar Abdullah Residence, NC Defends Policy05:38 India-UAE Sign Major Energy Pact As UAE To Store 30 Million Barrels In India’s Strategic Oil Reserve03:37 Iran Calls Chabahar Port India’s “Golden Gate” To Central Asia, Urges Continued Cooperation03:39 FIR Filed Against Abhishek Banerjee|TMC Alleges Poll Manipulation, Post-Poll Violence in West Bengal
Hot Picks
Top Trends
Up Next
Follow Us On Social Media