January 21, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Qatar Airways, holding that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was established in relation to a special repatriation flight operated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The complaint was filed by Surendra Adlakha, a Non-Resident Indian and permanent resident of Sydney, Australia, who was stranded in India after international flights were suspended following the nationwide lockdown in March 2020. Adlakha had travelled to Chandigarh in February 2020 and was scheduled to return to Australia on March 18, 2020. However, due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and the suspension of international air travel, he was unable to return as planned.
Subsequently, limited international travel was permitted through government-facilitated evacuation arrangements. In this backdrop, the Australian High Commission, in collaboration with Qatar Airways, organised special chartered repatriation flights to evacuate Australian citizens stranded in India. Adlakha opted to travel on one such flight from New Delhi to Sydney on April 29, 2020.
For the one-way journey, the complainant paid ₹1,64,639 as airfare, alleging that the amount was significantly higher than pre-pandemic fares. He also paid ₹5,000 for a bus journey from Chandigarh to Delhi, arranged under pandemic travel protocols. Adlakha alleged that despite charging higher fares on the premise of COVID-related safety measures, the airline failed to maintain social distancing onboard, operated the flight at full capacity, and did not ensure adequate sanitisation. He further complained of inconvenience due to delayed delivery of his baggage, which reached him three days after his arrival in Australia while he was undergoing mandatory quarantine.
After issuing a legal notice and receiving no satisfactory response, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Qatar Airways denied the allegations, stating that the flight in question was a government-facilitated chartered repatriation flight and not a regular commercial service. The airline submitted that fares for evacuation flights were fixed in consultation with the Australian High Commission, keeping in view extraordinary operational costs during the pandemic. It further stated that social distancing onboard aircraft was neither mandated nor feasible for chartered repatriation flights, and that all applicable health and safety protocols were followed. The airline also contended that the bus journey from Chandigarh to Delhi was arranged by the Australian High Commission and not by Qatar Airways. As regards delayed baggage, it attributed the issue to pandemic-related operational constraints.
After examining the pleadings and evidence, the Commission observed that the complainant travelled during an unprecedented global crisis when the country was under a strict lockdown and all scheduled flights were suspended. It held that once the flight was found to be a special chartered repatriation flight operated under extraordinary circumstances, comparison with pre-pandemic commercial airfare was misconceived.
The Commission further noted that the complainant failed to place on record any statutory or regulatory mandate applicable to chartered repatriation flights requiring maintenance of social distancing or empty middle seats. No cogent evidence was produced to show violation of any binding COVID-19 guideline. On the issue of delayed baggage, the Commission observed that no actual loss had been proved. The claim relating to the bus journey was rejected as neither the bus operator nor the Australian High Commission had been impleaded as parties.
Emphasising that inconvenience caused due to force majeure events such as a global pandemic, governmental restrictions and emergency evacuations cannot, by itself, amount to deficiency in service, the Commission held that the complainant failed to discharge the required burden of proof. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.
Case Details:
Surendra Adlakha vs. Qatar Airways IBE
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/280/2021
Decision Date: January 20, 2026
Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member)
