Mumbai, June 22, 2025 – The Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has faulted SpiceJet for issuing an incorrect rerouting ticket in December 2020, directing the airline to pay ₹25,000 in compensation plus ₹5,000 toward litigation costs. The decision derives from a complaint filed by a senior citizen who had booked a return from Darbhanga via Mumbai, only to receive a flawed connection that caused him to miss a crucial online PhD exam.
The Incident: Misrouted and Missed
The complainant, a resident of Ghatkopar, Mumbai, originally booked a round-trip flight from Mumbai to Darbhanga for December 5, 2020, with his return set for December 7. While the outbound flight occurred seamlessly, the return leg was abruptly canceled due to severe weather conditions, as determined by Air Traffic Control in the interest of passenger safety.
Needing to be back in Mumbai by December 8 for a PhD examination, the senior citizen requested alternate flights. SpiceJet rebooked him via Patna and Kolkata. However, upon arrival in Patna, airport authorities informed him that the Kolkata-to-Mumbai leg would depart before his arrival there, rendering the imposed itinerary non-viable.
Stranded, he was compelled to purchase a separate ticket at his own expense to continue the journey the following morning. As a result, he missed the exam entirely, endured financial loss and mental distress.
What Was Claimed and How SpiceJet Responded
In his complaint, he sought:
- ₹14,577 for the original fare
- ₹2 lakh in compensation for emotional trauma and mental agony
- ₹25,000 for legal expenses
SpiceJet contended:
- The flight cancellation was due to circumstances beyond its control, falling under the jurisdiction of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.
- It had rightly issued an alternate itinerary without extra charges and refunded the full original fare via the booking agency.
Consumer Commission’s Ruling: Shared Responsibility
On June 17, the Commission acknowledged:
- The caller was stuck due to a cancellation that was genuinely weather-induced and thus beyond SpiceJet’s control.
- The airline did attempt to rebook but failed by issuing an impractical ticket—an error resulting in “monetary and mental suffering”.
- The complainant may have mitigated the error had he checked the revised itinerary when first issued, though this did not absolve the airline.
The Commission concluded:
“The opposite party is guilty of deficient service and negligent behaviour by issuing incorrect ticket, which threw the complainant in an unwarranted mental harassment.”
Final Compensation
The bench awarded:
- ₹25,000 for mental agony
- ₹5,000 toward litigation expenses
- Full fare refund (₹14,577) had already been processed
In total, SpiceJet was fined approximately ₹30,000, beyond refundable flight costs.
Broader Legal and Consumer Implications
This ruling highlights several critical lessons for India’s aviation industry:
- Flight cancellations due to weather remain lawful and generally exempt airlines from liability. However, rebooking must be accurate, sensible, and reliable.
- Failure in rerouting can warrant compensatory damages—not just fare refunds—and reflects inadequate or negligent service.
- Passenger vigilance also plays a role—but cannot shoulder the full burden when airlines issue fundamentally flawed tickets.
- Altogether, the decision aligns with a growing trend: consumer-pushed accountability where airlines must go beyond procedural compliance to ensure stress-free travel outcomes.
SpiceJet Performance Context
Notably, this verdict coincides with SpiceJet’s revived profitability:
- The airline has delivered back-to-back profit quarters, with standalone PAT for March 2025 hitting ₹324.87 crore—triple the prior year and marking its first cumulative annual profit in seven years.
- These recent gains reduce dependency on short-term penalties, although repeated rulings could start denting brand integrity and consumer confidence.
Takeaways for Passengers & Carriers
| Stakeholder | Key Precaution |
|---|---|
| Passengers | Always verify revised itineraries immediately upon receipt; proactive flagging can avoid missed connections and losses. |
| Airlines | Ensure double-checking rerouting logic—dates and layovers must be sequentially valid before ticketing. |
| Consumer Forums | Expect more such cases, especially involving emotional distress, not just monetary loss—airlines are being held increasingly accountable. |
Final Word
The ₹30,000 penalty may seem modest against SpiceJet’s financial health, but this ruling sets an important precedent—airlines must provide not only rerouting but functional rerouting. It reinforces consumer entitlements for any avoidable service lapses, especially where emotional and academic consequences are at stake. Given SpiceJet’s rebound, this story serves both as a cautionary tale and a benchmark for Indian carriers striving for excellence in passenger care.
