Etihad Ordered to Refund Ticket in DCDRC Karnal Ruling

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Karnal has issued a landmark judgment regarding an Etihad Airways refund ruling, finding the carrier guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The commission directed the airline to refund the ticket cost of Rs 1,21,737 to a Civil Judge and her husband, along with an additional 9% annual interest calculated from the date of purchase. This decision highlights the growing trend of passengers utilizing consumer courts to challenge airline policies that disregard the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) guidelines on passenger rights.

The Dispute Over Schedule Changes

The legal action stemmed from a round-trip booking made through the online travel agency MakeMyTrip for travel in 2025. The complainants, a Civil Judge and a Block Development and Panchayat Officer, were scheduled to fly from New Delhi to Zurich, with a return leg from Rome to Delhi. According to the DCDRC Karnal airline judgment, the airline unilaterally preponed the departure of the flight from New Delhi by 1 hour and 10 minutes. This adjustment rendered the flight inaccessible for the passengers due to prior work commitments. Despite formal requests to restore the original schedule, provide an alternative flight, or issue a refund, the airline rejected all proposals, forcing the couple to purchase alternative tickets at a significantly higher cost.

Compensation and Regulatory Implications

In addition to the full refund of the ticket cost, the commission awarded Rs 75,000 to each complainant for mental agony and harassment, alongside Rs 22,000 to cover litigation expenses. The total liability, including the ticket refund, exceeds Rs 2.93 lakh. The commission set a strict 45-day compliance window. Should the airline fail to meet this deadline, the outstanding amount will accrue penal interest at a rate of 12% per annum. This ruling reinforces the mandate under CAR (Civil Aviation Requirements) Section 3, Series M, Part IV, which dictates that airlines must provide either an alternate flight or a full refund when schedule changes impact a passenger's ability to travel without adequate notice. Access the DGCA India - Official Portal for further details on these mandates.

Deficiency in Aviation Service

The commission, led by president Jaswant Singh with members Neeru Agarwal and Sarvjeet Kaur, observed that the passengers had provided sufficient notice regarding their scheduling difficulties. The court noted that the airline had adequate time to either accommodate the request or resell the seats, yet chose to maintain a rigid stance. This decision mirrors historical precedents, such as the July 2023 ruling against Qatar Airways by the DCDRC Ernakulam, where a High Court judge was awarded Rs 7 lakh for denied boarding. Similarly, a July 2024 case involving IndiGo demonstrated a judicial appetite for imposing heavy penalties on carriers for arbitrary ticket management.

What Comes Next: Compliance Deadline

The primary milestone for this case is the compliance deadline set by the commission. Etihad Airways is required to settle the full payment, including the refund, compensation, and litigation costs, by late July 2026. Failure to adhere to this timeline will trigger the escalated 12% per annum penal interest rate. The airline maintains a legal position common to the industry, often arguing that its internal Conditions of Carriage allow for minor schedule modifications without triggering automatic refund obligations. However, this ruling suggests that Indian judicial bodies are increasingly prioritizing the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 over internal airline policies when evaluating cases of deficiency in aviation service.

Why This Matters for Indian Passengers

This ruling signals a shift in the power dynamic between international carriers and Indian passengers. By bypassing standard airline customer service channels and leveraging the consumer redressal system, passengers are successfully securing punitive damages that go beyond standard refund protocols. For airlines, this underscores the risk of relying on rigid rebooking policies that conflict with the spirit of DGCA consumer protection mandates. For the broader industry, the case serves as a reminder that judicial bodies are increasingly unwilling to accept internal airline policy as a defense when it results in clear financial and emotional harm to the traveler.