Now, airlines to pay up to Rs 20,000 per flier for flight cancellation or denying boarding

July 18, 2016

New Delhi, Jul 18: Cancelling a flight or denying boarding to a flier is going to cost heavily to domestic airlines as the new guidelines by the aviation regulator DGCA provides for massive compensation in such cases.

cancelledAs per the revised compensation norms, which are effective from August 1, an airline will have to pay up to Rs 10,000 to a flier in the case of cancelling/delaying a flight beyond two hours, while the compensation for not allowing a passenger to board the flight stands at up to Rs 20,000.

As of now airlines offer a meagre amount of up to Rs 4,000 for both denied boarding and cancelling a flight.

The revised compensation has been arrived at after extensive consultations with all stakeholders including the airlines.

Fliers body, Air Passengers Association of India (APAI) founder and president D Sudhakara Reddy, however, has said that the new norms leave certain grey areas which need to be addressed.

Airlines shall pay a compensation of Rs 5,000 or booked one-way basic fare plus fuel charge, whichever is less for cancelled/ delayed flights having a block time of up to one hour in addition to refund of ticket, in case a flier has not been informed by the carrier as per the DGCA norms.

In the case of an airline cancelling/delaying its flight over one hour but up to two hours the compensation amount will be Rs 7,500 or booked one-way basic fare plus fuel charge, whichever is less, besides the refund amount, according to the revised norms.

An amount of Rs 10,000 or booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, whichever is less, will be the compensation for flights having a block time of more than two hours, according to the new compensation norms.

Block hours refer to the period when an aircraft pushes back from its departure gate till the moment it reaches the arrival gate. These hours are used to calculate an airline?s on-time performance (OTP) besides determining the compensation in the eventuality of a flight getting cancelled or delayed.

In case of denied boarding, airline will have to pay an amount equal to 200 per cent of booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, subject to maximum of Rs 20,000, in case airline arranges alternate flight that is scheduled to depart within 24 hours of the booked scheduled departure, as per the revised norms.

An amount equal to 400 per cent of booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, subject to maximum of Rs 20,000, will have to be paid to a flier in case airline arranges alternate flight that is scheduled to depart beyond 24 hours of the booked scheduled departure, as per the revised norms.

In case passenger does not opt for alternate flight, refund of full value of ticket and compensation equal to 400 per cent of booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, subject to maximum of Rs 20,000, will have to be paid to a flier, it said.

We have strong objection to certain issues. The operating airline would not have the obligation to pay compensation in the situations which are beyond the control of the airline including political instability and delays on the part of air traffic control, among others. How can the ATC delays be a reason for compensation and this leaves the decision in a grey area and will lead to many disputes. It is also not transparent ," Reddy questioned.

"Also, since no financial compensation shall be payable to passengers who have not provided adequate contact information at the time of making booking or when the ticket for firm travel on the selected flight is issued. This will lead to dispute settlement mechanism and which agency will be the responsible agency and in what time frame. This is especially true when it comes to transit passengers/connecting international passengers ," he said.

Besides, the burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the passenger has been informed of the delay of the flight shall rest with the operating airline, Reddy said adding, " this is a grey area and leaves the burden of proof in the hands of the airline and can?t be accepted."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 10,2020

Hyderabad, Feb 10: All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi continued his tirade against PM Modi and Amit Shah against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Population Register (NPR) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). "We are ready to take bullets in our chests but we will not show our papers.

We are ready to take bullets in our chests as we love our country," Owaisi said further.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 16,2020

Kochi, Apr 16: A middle-aged man carrying his ailing father on his shoulders walked close to one-kilometre in Kerala’s Punalur when the autorickshaw he was driving was allegedly stopped by the police over the ongoing lockdown. He was bringing back his father from the hospital after he was discharged on Wednesday.

In a video that has gone viral on social media, the man can be seen carrying his bare-bodied father on the shoulders and struggling to handle the weight while a woman carrying the hospital documents, prescriptions and other items, is running along with him.

The incident took place in Punalur town of Kollam district.

The 65-year-old man, a native of Kulathupuzha, was released from the Punalur Taluk Hospital and his son was taking him home when he was stopped on the road. The man has alleged that even after he produced hospital documents, the police refused to let him pass with the autorickshaw.

The vehicle was stopped about a kilometre from their house in the middle of a traffic jam and the family had to walk the rest of the path. He said even after he told the police and showed papers from hospital he was not allowed to go.

After the video went viral in Kerala, the state human rights commission took suo motu cognizance of the incident.

The nationwide lockdown has prevented all non-essential movement in the public space while medical emergencies have been allowed. The extended lockdown will now continue till May 3.

According to the police, the vehicle did not have the patient when it was stopped. The driver was asked to show a declaration document.

He stepped out of the vehicle and walked to the hospital which was 200 metres from the checkpoint and returned carrying his father on the back, said the police.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 4,2020

New Delhi, Mar 4: The Supreme Court on Wednesday revoked the ban of cryptocurrency imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2018.

Pronouncing the verdict, the three-judge bench of the apex court said the ban was 'disproportionate'.

The bench included Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice V Ramasubramanian.

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), whose members include cryptocurrency exchanges, and others had approached the top court objecting to a 2018 RBI circular directing regulated entities to not deal with cryptocurrencies.

Advocate Ashim Sood, appearing for IAMI, submitted that Reserve Bank of India lacked jurisdiction to forbid dealings in cryptocurrencies. The blanket ban was based on an erroneous understanding that it was impossible to regulate cryptocurrencies, Sood submitted.

The petitioners had argued that the RBI's circular taking cryptocurrencies out of the banking channels would deplete the ability of law enforcement agencies to regulate illegal activities in the industry.

IAMAI had claimed the move of RBI had effectively banned legitimate business activity via the virtual currencies (VCs).

The RBI on April 6, 2018, had issued the circular that barred RBI-regulated entities from "providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those of transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.