Mumbai: A district consumer commission has held that an airline’s refusal to allow boarding after a passenger failed to pay excess baggage charges and missed the check-in deadline does not amount to deficiency in service when the airline acts under its contractual conditions of carriage. The consumer commission dismissed a complaint filed by Versova resident Kanti Jain against Brussels Airlines for being denied boarding for a Mumbai-Manchester journey via Brussels scheduled on Sept 12, 2017. The commission considered the plea and documents, including baggage records and the airline’s General Conditions of Carriage. “Consumer Commissions cannot rewrite contractual terms voluntarily accepted by the parties unless such terms are shown to be illegal, arbitrary, unconscionable or contrary to law,” the commission said.The commission held that the airline acted strictly in accordance with the General Conditions of Carriage, the baggage policy and the operational requirements governing international air travel. “No negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is established,” the commission said on Tuesday.Jain moved the Mumbai Suburban Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2026. Jain had booked three confirmed economy-class tickets for travel with two children. Jain alleged that despite confirmed tickets, boarding was denied and fresh tickets had to be purchased from another airline, causing additional expense.Brussels Airlines denied the allegations and said Jain and co-passengers were carrying baggage beyond the permissible free allowance. The airline said applicable excess baggage charges were demanded under its policy, but Jain refused to pay and sought to travel without payment.The commission, however, said Article 8 of the airline’s General Conditions of Carriage permitted the carrier to charge passengers for baggage beyond the free allowance. The order stated, “Thus, the demand made by the Opposite Party requiring payment of excess baggage charges was fully supported by the contractual terms binding upon both parties.”The commission also noted that Jain chose to rearrange the baggage instead of paying the charges and returned to the check-in counter after the stipulated check-in time had expired. “Once the check-in process is closed, the carrier cannot ordinarily accept passengers without disturbing operational schedules, security protocols and aviation safety requirements,” the commission said.Rejecting the allegation of unfair treatment, the commission observed, “The complainant has not produced any evidence to establish that the baggage policy was applied arbitrarily, discriminatorily or contrary to the published conditions.”The commission held that the denial of carriage followed Jain’s failure to comply with baggage and check-in requirements. “Merely because the complainant suffered inconvenience or had to buy fresh tickets from another airline would not by itself establish deficiency in service, when such consequences resulted from his own failure to comply with the contractual requirements.”
