However, on June 22, whereas boarding from Delhi, the Partis had been shocked to see that their boarding passes had been issued with totally different seats (32E and 32D), with none prior intimation. When they enquired with the airline employees, they allegedly behaved rudely with the couple and requested them “to sit on the seats allotted now or leave the boarding”. The senior residents later learnt that the airline had allegedly allotted their seats to some VIPs.

Sunil mentioned that they had been fatigued after they arrived at Vancouver airport at 7.15 am on June 22. Due to the airways, the complainants alleged, they needed to journey on one other flight from Vancouver to Calgary with physique ache.

In its reply on being issued discover, Air India submitted that the petition was devoid of deserves, vexatious and was liable to be dismissed because the applicant had suppressed the fabric details from the discussion board. His emergency exit seat was allegedly declined on the boarding gate owing to his sick well being. Airlines officers additionally mentioned that because the couple had been senior residents, they weren’t discovered eligible to be seated on emergency exit seats as per the Director General of Civil Aviation’s exit row seating pointers.

Therefore, the airline mentioned, after analysis of the bodily situation of the candidates, it took the choice to modify their seats to the following most suitable choice accessible and the identical was accepted by them. “Switching the seats of the applicants has not gained any pecuniary or otherwise any gains. It was done for the reason of safety and security of entire passengers including applicants,” the airline submitted in its reply.

The airline additionally mentioned {that a} warning within the type of a disclaimer was put up on its web site together with the eligibility standards for emergency exit seats, and particulars about the identical are additionally displayed on the emergency exit gate. Also, as per the disclaimer, “…airline reserves the right to allot an alternate seat at any stage of the journey for operational or safety requirements without assigning any reasons…”

The Lok Adalat bench on listening to the contentions mentioned that, “Maybe the disclaimer as highlighted have been put on the website or elsewhere. But what is the fault of the applicant? When despite this disclaimer, the respondent had the audacity to charge Rs 18,000 extra for the emergency exit seats. Why were the seats not refused before hand? It is the duty of the respondent to check the antecedents of the passengers before awarding such seats after charging for an extra amount. On that count, no fault can be found with the innocent passengers.”

“Obviously given the old age and the duration of the journey which is approximately 15 hours, discomfort that might have been caused to the applicant can well be appreciated. There is no denial that the airline has not refunded the extra premium charged. Without no fault of the applicants, they were made to suffer,” the Lok Adalat held.

The bench presided by Chairman S Ok Sachdeva and members Sakshi Singh and Roonam Kaushik held that the complainant was entitled to Rs 48,000.