Air India has been directed to pay a total of Rs 74,131 to a student after the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found that the airline failed to refund excess baggage charges despite later acknowledging that she was entitled to benefits under its own student travel scheme, according to a report by The Indian Express.
The case relates to Jaipur resident Lavanya Magon, who had approached consumer forums after being charged for excess baggage while travelling from London to India in 2021.
The commission observed that the airline’s actions resulted in unnecessary harassment and prolonged litigation for the student.
According to the report, the dispute arose under Air India’s ‘Maharaja Scholar Scheme’, which provided special baggage
allowances to students travelling on international routes.
Magon, who was studying in the United Kingdom, had booked a ticket on Air India Flight AI-162 to travel from London to India.
According to her complaint, when she checked in for her flight on July 21, 2021, the airline denied her the benefit of the student baggage scheme and collected 350 British Pounds Sterling, equivalent to Rs 34,131, as excess baggage charges.
Believing that she was eligible for the scheme, Magon sought a refund from the airline after her journey.
The report claimed that Air India initially refused to refund the amount, arguing that Magon did not qualify under the scheme’s conditions because of the duration and completion timeline of her academic programme.
Magon contested the airline’s position. She maintained that although her course was designed as a four-year programme, she had completed it in three years under a special academic arrangement.
She also clarified that her travel was connected to the completion of her studies and not a temporary visit home.
Despite her explanations, the refund was not processed.
AIRLINE LATER ACCEPTED SHE WAS ELIGIBLE
The commission noted that after multiple rounds of correspondence, Air India eventually accepted that Magon was entitled to the additional baggage allowance available under the Maharaja Scholar Scheme.
On September 26, 2021, the airline agreed that she qualified for the benefit and initiated the refund process.
Two days later, it requested her credit card details and other information necessary to process the payment.
However, despite obtaining the required details and acknowledging her eligibility, the refund was never made, prompting the student to seek legal recourse through the consumer forum.
The matter first came before a district consumer commission, which ruled in Magon’s favour on February 15, 2024.
As per the report, the district commission directed Air India to refund Rs 34,131, the amount collected as excess baggage charges.
It also awarded Rs 4,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 3,000 towards litigation expenses.
Magon subsequently challenged the order, arguing that the compensation awarded was inadequate given the years she had spent pursuing the refund.
Hearing her appeal, the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission agreed that the compensation awarded by the district forum was too low.
Judicial Member Mukesh and Member Dinesh Kumar observed that the student had been subjected to unnecessary mental stress and had lost valuable time pursuing a claim that the airline had eventually acknowledged as valid.
The commission further noted that compensation in consumer disputes is meant not only to address financial loss but also to account for inconvenience, harassment and mental suffering caused by deficient service.
Partly allowing Magon’s appeal, the state commission increased compensation for mental agony from Rs 4,000 to Rs 30,000.
Litigation costs were also enhanced from Rs 3,000 to Rs 10,000.
The direction to refund the original Rs 34,131 collected as excess baggage charges remained unchanged.
As a result, Air India was directed to pay a total of Rs 74,131 to the complainant.
The commission concluded that despite accepting the student’s eligibility under its own scheme, the airline failed to process the refund, forcing her into years of avoidable litigation and causing significant mental distress, the report noted.
/images/ppid_a911dc6a-image-178124103948928302.webp)
