In a landmark consumer-protection ruling issued on October 29, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Air Canada and Lufthansa to refund ₹44,161 (about CAD 730) plus 9 percent interest and pay ₹20,000 (CAD 330) in damages to an Indian student left stranded for 36 hours at Vancouver International Airport in 2019. The ruling, although rendered in India, has cross-border implications because it establishes jurisdiction over foreign airlines marketing tickets to Indian consumers.
The student, en route from Delhi to Ottawa, was unexpectedly diverted to Vancouver when Pakistani airspace closed. The commission found the carriers failed to provide accommodation, onward transport or timely assistance—constituting “deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.” Both airlines argued the diversion was unavoidable and that passengers had been informed, but the panel cited lack of documentary evidence and noted that the Montreal Convention obliges carriers to care for passengers during disruptions.
For Canadian carriers, the case underscores growing global scrutiny of passenger-rights obligations in jurisdictions outside the ambit of Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR). Companies selling tickets in multiple markets may now face parallel enforcement actions, raising compliance costs and exposing them to reputational risk if service failures occur during irregular operations.
Travel-risk specialists advise multinational employers to keep detailed records of flight disruptions affecting staff, including carrier correspondence and receipts for out-of-pocket expenses, as such documentation strengthens compensation claims. Legal experts also remind carriers that foreign judgments can sometimes be enforced in Canada under principles of comity, depending on provincial conflict-of-laws rules.
Next steps: Air Canada and Lufthansa have 60 days to appeal or satisfy the award. The decision may spur India’s aviation regulator to revisit its own passenger-rights framework, potentially increasing costs for airlines operating lucrative Canada-India routes.
The student, en route from Delhi to Ottawa, was unexpectedly diverted to Vancouver when Pakistani airspace closed. The commission found the carriers failed to provide accommodation, onward transport or timely assistance—constituting “deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.” Both airlines argued the diversion was unavoidable and that passengers had been informed, but the panel cited lack of documentary evidence and noted that the Montreal Convention obliges carriers to care for passengers during disruptions.
For Canadian carriers, the case underscores growing global scrutiny of passenger-rights obligations in jurisdictions outside the ambit of Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR). Companies selling tickets in multiple markets may now face parallel enforcement actions, raising compliance costs and exposing them to reputational risk if service failures occur during irregular operations.
Travel-risk specialists advise multinational employers to keep detailed records of flight disruptions affecting staff, including carrier correspondence and receipts for out-of-pocket expenses, as such documentation strengthens compensation claims. Legal experts also remind carriers that foreign judgments can sometimes be enforced in Canada under principles of comity, depending on provincial conflict-of-laws rules.
Next steps: Air Canada and Lufthansa have 60 days to appeal or satisfy the award. The decision may spur India’s aviation regulator to revisit its own passenger-rights framework, potentially increasing costs for airlines operating lucrative Canada-India routes.
