Child denied boarding due to ignorance of immigration rules by airline's staff, traveller awarded Rs 1.25 lakh compensation
An air traveller was awarded Rs 1.25 lakh compensation after an airline wrongly denied his child a boarding pass due to misapplied immigration rules. The family was forced to reschedule their trip and purchase new tickets. The consumer commission ...
By Neelanjit Das, ET Online | Updated:
ET Online
Imagine booking an international flight for your family, only to find out at the airport that the airline staff denies to give your child a boarding pass due to the staff's ignorance of the correct immigration rules. That’s exactly what happened to Mr. Joseph on July 27, 2013, when he got three tickets for his family to fly from Cochin, Kerala to Doha, Qatar.
He arrived at the airline’s counter around 7.50 PM, and asked for their boarding passes. However, the supervisor at the counter refused to issue boarding pass to the minor child, claiming the visa was stamped on the old passport, even though both the old and new passports were submitted together.
While he and his wife got their boarding passes, their minor child did not, which meant they couldn’t travel without him. Thus Mr Joseph requested the supervisor to issue boarding pass to the minor child also, promising to cover any financial issues that might arise from it.
The airline’s staff did not accept his request and thus the child was not issued a boarding pass. As a result, Mr Joseph and his family could not travel on that day and had to cancel all the tickets. They ended up rescheduling their trip for the next day at 04.20 am, after buying new tickets with Emirates Airlines, for July 28, 2013.
The family made it to Doha, Qatar the following day without any issues with the visa stamping on the old passport, at the emigration counter. While Emirates followed the correct immigration rule and issued boarding pass to the child, the airline Mr Joseph originally booked with, did not. Thus Emirates had the correct knowledge of immigration rules.
Mr Joseph claimed that the originally booked airline’s staff (supervisor) was ignorant of the rules and regulations of immigration formalities and provided him with deficient service.
On August 13, 2013, he reached out to the airline he originally booked with, asking for a refund of the ticket he purchased for his Emirates flight, along with reasonable compensation for deficient service.
On August 26, 2013, the airline replied stating that there was a circular issued to them from the Doha, Qatar emigration department that all valid visas have to be transferred to the renewed passport and if not, the guests are liable to be deported.
Following this, he filed a case in the consumer commission. He brought to the commission’s notice that another passenger, Cheruvalappil, who traveled from Kochi to Doha on August 14, 2013 and whose visa was also stamped on the old passport, was issued a boarding pass by the same airline. So he argued that when that other passenger was allowed, why was his child not allowed despite both facing the same issue.
The consumer commission held that the actions of the ground staff of the airline in denying the boarding pass to Mr Joseph’s minor son, for no fault of his or his parents, reflected enjoyment of sadistic pleasure by the staff concerned.
Also read: Angry passenger alleges IndiGo denied her boarding despite confirmed ticket, says priority given to high-fare customers
Moreover, the fact that Emirates Airlines had allowed Mr Joseph’s son to board the flight strengthened his case. The consumer commission said: “The rules and regulations for carrying passengers in international flights in the matter of immigration, is same to all airlines. There cannot have distinct rules for the opposite party (the original airline) alone.”
The consumer commission observed that Mr Joseph and his family were permitted to travel in the Emirates Airlines, without any contortion or hesitation.
The consumer commission said: “There was no snag of any circular as contented by the opposite party, for the Emirates Airlines to carry the complainant (Mr Joseph) and his family to Doha, with the same passport and visa stamped as such.”
Thus on December 31, 2025, Mr Joseph won the case and compensation.
Also read: Denied boarding by airline? You may demand 400% compensation. Here are your rights and how to claim
Mr Joseph was held as the consumer as he had bought three tickets from the airline by paying Rs 5,200.
The consumer commission observed that the affidavit filed by Mr Joseph would prove all allegations raised by him in the complaint.
Mr Joseph had produced the copy of air tickets of both the airline concerned and that of the Emirates Airlines. The copy of the passport of another minor child in which the current visa stamped was also produced as evidence.
The consumer commission said that the fact that another minor child was permitted to travel in the airline on August 14, 2013 would go to show that the contentions raised by the airline in reply to the letter issued by the Mr Joseph for refund, on August 26, 2013 did not carry bona fides.
Also read: New Zealand couple denied boarding despite online check-in: Here’s why
The consumer commission noted that the circular, allegedly issued from Doha, Qatar, does not mention the name of the office which had issued it and its competency.
The consumer commission said: “We find that the case of issuance of such circular is only a cock and bull story cooked up by the opposite party, which did not have the support and sanction of any law, rules regulations or circulars given by any competent authorities of the immigration department, Doha.”
The consumer commission said: “The action of the ground staff of the opposite party in denying the boarding pass to the complainant's minor son, for no fault of his or his parents, is nothing but a reflection of enjoyment of sadistic pleasure by the staff concerned.”
The consumer commission also observed that the rules and regulations for carrying passengers in international flights in the matter of immigration, are the same for all airlines. There cannot be distinct rules for this particular airline.
The consumer commission pointed out that Mr Joseph and his family were permitted to travel in Emirates Airlines, without any contortion or hesitation. Emirates Airlines carried Mr Joseph and his family to Doha, with the same passport and visa stamped as such.
The consumer commission said: “We therefore find that the complainant had substantially proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party committed against him.”
Though Mr Joseph himself did not appear to give evidence on the mental agony and pain suffered by him in the matter, the consumer commission said they find that “it is a matter which could be taken note of, by visualising the predicament of a family with confirmed air ticket, having been refused boarding pass for the accompanying child of tender age. We find the point in favour of the complainant.”
The consumer commission also said: “The opposite party’s conscious failure to file the written version is an admission of the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party. Hence the case of the complainant stands unchallengeable before the opposite party (airline).”
The consumer commission said: “The above order shall be complied by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the order is not compiled by the opposite party within 30 days, the amount ordered vide (1) and (2) above shall attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization. Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 31st day of December 2025.”
Compensation calculation:
Rs 33,000*9%*150 months (12.5 years)/12= Rs 33,000+37,125= Rs 70,125.
+
Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony
+
Rs 5,000 as cost of proceedings
Total: Rs 1,25,725
He arrived at the airline’s counter around 7.50 PM, and asked for their boarding passes. However, the supervisor at the counter refused to issue boarding pass to the minor child, claiming the visa was stamped on the old passport, even though both the old and new passports were submitted together.
While he and his wife got their boarding passes, their minor child did not, which meant they couldn’t travel without him. Thus Mr Joseph requested the supervisor to issue boarding pass to the minor child also, promising to cover any financial issues that might arise from it.
The airline’s staff did not accept his request and thus the child was not issued a boarding pass. As a result, Mr Joseph and his family could not travel on that day and had to cancel all the tickets. They ended up rescheduling their trip for the next day at 04.20 am, after buying new tickets with Emirates Airlines, for July 28, 2013.
The family made it to Doha, Qatar the following day without any issues with the visa stamping on the old passport, at the emigration counter. While Emirates followed the correct immigration rule and issued boarding pass to the child, the airline Mr Joseph originally booked with, did not. Thus Emirates had the correct knowledge of immigration rules.
Mr Joseph claimed that the originally booked airline’s staff (supervisor) was ignorant of the rules and regulations of immigration formalities and provided him with deficient service.
On August 13, 2013, he reached out to the airline he originally booked with, asking for a refund of the ticket he purchased for his Emirates flight, along with reasonable compensation for deficient service.
On August 26, 2013, the airline replied stating that there was a circular issued to them from the Doha, Qatar emigration department that all valid visas have to be transferred to the renewed passport and if not, the guests are liable to be deported.
Following this, he filed a case in the consumer commission. He brought to the commission’s notice that another passenger, Cheruvalappil, who traveled from Kochi to Doha on August 14, 2013 and whose visa was also stamped on the old passport, was issued a boarding pass by the same airline. So he argued that when that other passenger was allowed, why was his child not allowed despite both facing the same issue.
The consumer commission held that the actions of the ground staff of the airline in denying the boarding pass to Mr Joseph’s minor son, for no fault of his or his parents, reflected enjoyment of sadistic pleasure by the staff concerned.
ADVERTISEMENT
Also read: Angry passenger alleges IndiGo denied her boarding despite confirmed ticket, says priority given to high-fare customers
Moreover, the fact that Emirates Airlines had allowed Mr Joseph’s son to board the flight strengthened his case. The consumer commission said: “The rules and regulations for carrying passengers in international flights in the matter of immigration, is same to all airlines. There cannot have distinct rules for the opposite party (the original airline) alone.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The consumer commission observed that Mr Joseph and his family were permitted to travel in the Emirates Airlines, without any contortion or hesitation.
The consumer commission said: “There was no snag of any circular as contented by the opposite party, for the Emirates Airlines to carry the complainant (Mr Joseph) and his family to Doha, with the same passport and visa stamped as such.”
Thus on December 31, 2025, Mr Joseph won the case and compensation.
Also read: Denied boarding by airline? You may demand 400% compensation. Here are your rights and how to claim
Ernakulam (Kerala) district consumer commission order analysis and discussion
The Ernakulam district consumer commission in Kerala comprising of its president D.B. Binu, and members Ramachandran V. and Sreevidhia T.N decided this case.Mr Joseph was held as the consumer as he had bought three tickets from the airline by paying Rs 5,200.
The consumer commission observed that the affidavit filed by Mr Joseph would prove all allegations raised by him in the complaint.
Mr Joseph had produced the copy of air tickets of both the airline concerned and that of the Emirates Airlines. The copy of the passport of another minor child in which the current visa stamped was also produced as evidence.
The consumer commission said that the fact that another minor child was permitted to travel in the airline on August 14, 2013 would go to show that the contentions raised by the airline in reply to the letter issued by the Mr Joseph for refund, on August 26, 2013 did not carry bona fides.
Also read: New Zealand couple denied boarding despite online check-in: Here’s why
The consumer commission noted that the circular, allegedly issued from Doha, Qatar, does not mention the name of the office which had issued it and its competency.
The consumer commission said: “We find that the case of issuance of such circular is only a cock and bull story cooked up by the opposite party, which did not have the support and sanction of any law, rules regulations or circulars given by any competent authorities of the immigration department, Doha.”
The consumer commission said: “The action of the ground staff of the opposite party in denying the boarding pass to the complainant's minor son, for no fault of his or his parents, is nothing but a reflection of enjoyment of sadistic pleasure by the staff concerned.”
The consumer commission also observed that the rules and regulations for carrying passengers in international flights in the matter of immigration, are the same for all airlines. There cannot be distinct rules for this particular airline.
The consumer commission pointed out that Mr Joseph and his family were permitted to travel in Emirates Airlines, without any contortion or hesitation. Emirates Airlines carried Mr Joseph and his family to Doha, with the same passport and visa stamped as such.
The consumer commission said: “We therefore find that the complainant had substantially proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party committed against him.”
Though Mr Joseph himself did not appear to give evidence on the mental agony and pain suffered by him in the matter, the consumer commission said they find that “it is a matter which could be taken note of, by visualising the predicament of a family with confirmed air ticket, having been refused boarding pass for the accompanying child of tender age. We find the point in favour of the complainant.”
The consumer commission also said: “The opposite party’s conscious failure to file the written version is an admission of the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party. Hence the case of the complainant stands unchallengeable before the opposite party (airline).”
Judgement:
- To reimburse the complainant, Rs 33,000 being the cost of air ticket purchased from Emirates Airlines with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from July 27, 2013 till date of payment.
- To pay Rs 50,000 towards compensation for the mental agony and sufferings of the complainant and his family.
- The opposite party shall also pay Rs 5,000 to the complainant as cost of proceedings.
The consumer commission said: “The above order shall be complied by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the order is not compiled by the opposite party within 30 days, the amount ordered vide (1) and (2) above shall attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization. Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 31st day of December 2025.”
Compensation calculation:
Rs 33,000*9%*150 months (12.5 years)/12= Rs 33,000+37,125= Rs 70,125.
+
Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony
+
Rs 5,000 as cost of proceedings
Total: Rs 1,25,725
Download
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Related Articles
New Zealand may implement stricter immigration rules for IndiansADVERTISEMENT
