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.
