SpiceJet ordered to pay ₹55,000 to Dubai passenger over 14 Hour flight delay

A Mumbai consumer court has ruled in favor of a passenger who received only a burger and fries during a 14-hour flight delay, holding SpiceJet accountable for failing to meet regulatory obligations. The airline has been directed to pay ₹55,000 in compensation, spotlighting the legal requirement for carriers to ensure adequate care during long disruptions.

The incident: A long delay, minimal support
A passenger flying from Dubai to Mumbai on July 27, 2024, experienced a prolonged delay of over 14 hours on a SpiceJet flight. Despite the extended wait, the airline provided only a single complimentary serving of a burger and fries during the entire disruption.

The passenger, left with no other support from the airline, later filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Mumbai Suburban). The grievance centered on the alleged violation of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by the aviation regulator, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). These regulations require airlines to offer meals, rest facilities, and regular updates to passengers affected by long delays.

Presiding over the case, Commission President Pradeep Kadu and Member Gauri M. Kapse took serious note of the service shortfall and found SpiceJet to be deficient in meeting its passenger care obligations.

Legal framework and airline's defence
The Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) guidelines require airlines to provide:

• Meals and refreshments appropriate to the waiting time
• Accommodation and transport, where necessary
• Timely updates and communication regarding delays

In its defense, SpiceJet argued that the delay resulted from "operational and technical reasons" and should be considered beyond its control. The airline also invoked CAR clauses that provide exemptions in cases of "extraordinary circumstances," such as technical glitches, asserting that they had informed passengers about the rescheduling and that the complainant boarded the rescheduled flight without protest.

However, the commission disagreed. It noted that for such exemptions to apply, airlines must provide sufficient supporting evidence, including:

• Flight logs
• Internal communications
• Notifications sent to passengers

In this case, SpiceJet failed to submit any such documentation, and the commission concluded that no valid proof was presented to establish that the airline had taken all reasonable measures or that the delay was unavoidable under CAR guidelines.

Court's observation and final ruling
In its order, the consumer commission made several firm observations:

• Airlines "cannot escape from their duty" to care for passengers during delays, regardless of how routine such disruptions might be in the aviation sector.
• "Adequate arrangements of meals, refreshments, water and necessary relaxing areas" are expected during lengthy delays.
• The provision of just one burger and fries over a span of more than 14 hours was deemed inadequate and insufficient.

Although the passenger initially demanded ₹4,00,000 in compensation for mental and physical distress, the court found this excessive. It noted that:

• The complainant had not submitted evidence of out-of-pocket expenses for food or other essentials.
• There were no supporting documents to validate claims of severe suffering or financial loss.

Taking all circumstances into account, the commission ruled:

• ₹50,000 should be paid as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience
• An additional ₹5,000 should be awarded as litigation costs

Thus, the total compensation ordered amounts to ₹55,000, which roughly equals AED 2,300 — or the cost of two adult round-trip tickets on the same Dubai–Mumbai route.

Broader implications for airlines and passengers
This verdict serves as a reminder that:

• Airlines must comply strictly with DGCA’s CAR guidelines.
• Operational issues, including technical faults, do not automatically exempt carriers from providing care to passengers.
• Courts may require documentation and transparency when airlines cite exceptions to service obligations.

The case underscores the legal expectation that carriers, even during unpredictable disruptions, must uphold passenger rights by offering essential services and maintaining open communication — a precedent that could influence how future delay-related complaints are handled by regulatory and judicial bodies.