Air India Ordered to Pay Passenger for Damaged Bag by Bengaluru Court

A consumer commission in Bengaluru has ordered Air India to pay a passenger a total of Rs 17,000 for a damaged bag, ruling the carrier was negligent. The decision, delivered on February 17, 2026, sets a significant precedent regarding passenger rights, particularly when airline staff obstruct the standard claims process. This case underscores the critical importance of the Property Irregularity Report (PIR) and affirms that an airline cannot use its own policies as a defense when its employees prevent a passenger from complying with them.

The ruling addresses a growing trend of passengers turning to consumer courts to resolve service disputes and reinforces the legal principle that the burden of proof can shift to the airline once baggage damage is established.

Case Background and Timeline

The incident began on September 8, 2024, when passenger Saurabh Raperia traveled on an Air India flight from Delhi to Bengaluru's Kempegowda International Airport. Upon arrival, he discovered a significant dent in his checked-in trolley bag, which had been marked with a fragile tag.

Mr. Raperia approached the airline's baggage service counter to file a complaint and obtain a PIR, an official document essential for initiating any airline baggage damage claim. According to the complaint, airline executives refused to accept the grievance or issue the report, instead instructing him to send an email. He later raised the issue on social media, prompting a response from the airline requesting details. He formally emailed the carrier on September 9, 2024.

Two days later, Air India offered Rs 500 in compensation, which was subsequently increased to Rs 1,000 after the passenger deemed the initial offer inadequate. Mr. Raperia had requested Rs 13,425, the value of a replacement bag. The airline's defense rested on its carriage policy, which states that passengers who leave the baggage area without reporting damage are considered to have received their bags in good condition. After a legal notice sent on September 23, 2024, went unanswered, Mr. Raperia filed a complaint with the consumer commission on December 10, 2024.

The Commission's Ruling

The consumer commission rejected Air India's defense. It held that the airline's offer of compensation was an implied admission that the damage occurred while the bag was in its custody. The commission stated that Air India could not rely on its internal policy because its own staff had prevented the passenger from complying with it by refusing to issue a PIR.

Citing established law, the commission noted that once damage to checked baggage is proven, the burden of proof shifts to the airline to demonstrate it was not negligent. Air India failed to produce any such evidence. Consequently, the commission ordered the airline to pay Rs 7,000 in damages for the service deficiency and an additional Rs 10,000 to cover litigation costs.

Regulatory Framework for Baggage Liability

This case operates within a clear regulatory framework governing airline liability in India. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), India's main aviation regulatory body, sets the rules for passenger rights. According to the DGCA's Passenger Charter, liability for lost, delayed, or damaged baggage on domestic flights is capped at ₹20,000 per passenger.

For international travel, India is a signatory to the Montreal Convention (MC99), which establishes uniform rules for airline liability. Under this treaty, liability for baggage issues is limited to approximately 1,519 Special Drawing Rights (SDR), an international reserve asset created by the IMF, which translates to roughly $2,000. The convention also stipulates that a written complaint for damaged baggage must be filed within seven days of receipt.

The refusal to issue a PIR was the central point of failure in this case, as it is the universally accepted first step for a passenger to formally document a claim and protect their rights under both domestic and international regulations.

Why This Matters

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder to airlines of their service obligations and reinforces passenger rights. It establishes that carriers cannot use procedural technicalities as a shield against liability, especially when their own operational conduct prevents passengers from following those procedures. For the Indian aviation market, the decision empowers consumers and highlights the effectiveness of consumer commissions in holding airlines accountable for service deficiencies, ensuring that established regulations on baggage handling and compensation are upheld.