Consumer court junks plea against airline, 'enforcing baggage limit, check-in deadline no deficiency in service'

A consumer commission has dismissed a complaint filed against Brussels Airlines by a passenger who was denied boarding after he refused to pay excess baggage fees and subsequently missed the check-in deadline.

The additional district consumer disputes redressal commission, Mumbai Suburban, in an order passed on Tuesday, said an airline cannot be held guilty of "deficiency in service" for enforcing a standard contractual condition.

According to the complaint, a Versova resident had booked economy-class tickets for himself and his two children to travel from Mumbai to Manchester via Brussels on September 12, 2017. His luggage exceeded the permissible free baggage allowance, following which the airline's ground staff asked him to pay excess baggage charges.


Also read: Air India's stumble creates a bigger problem than aviation duopoly

The complainant refused to pay the charges and insisted on travelling without any additional payment. He then attempted to rearrange his luggage, but by the time he returned to the check-in counter, the check-in deadline had already expired. As a result, he had to book tickets with another carrier and later approached the consumer commission seeking compensation from Brussels Airlines.

The commission noted that the complainant missed the check-in deadline as a direct consequence of his refusal to pay for the excess luggage.

"Such timelines are fundamental operational requirements in commercial aviation and are uniformly applicable to all passengers. Once the check-in process is closed, the carrier cannot ordinarily accept passengers without disturbing operational schedules, security protocols and aviation safety requirements," the commission said.

The commission observed that the airline had acted in accordance with its standard baggage policy.

"Merely because the complainant suffered inconvenience or had to purchase fresh tickets from another airline would not by itself establish deficiency in service, when such consequences resulted from his own failure to comply with the contractual requirements," it said, dismissing the complaint.