The recent wave of flight cancellations by IndiGo has left thousands of passengers stranded, raising questions about flyer rights and airline accountability. While airlines often cite operational or technical reasons for last-minute disruptions, the regulatory framework in India provides specific remedies for passengers. Consumer courts have on numerous occasions stepped in when airlines fail to pay up.The rights of air passengers in India are governed by the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), specifically Section 3, Series M, Part IV – issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). These rules, titled “Facilities to be provided to passengers by airlines due to denied boarding, cancellation of flights and delays in flights,” were last revised in January 2023.The obligation to compensate depends on when the airline informs the passenger about the cancellation. If an airline informs the passenger of the cancellation up to 24 hours before the scheduled departure, it is not liable to pay compensation. It must, however, arrange an alternate flight or provide a refund acceptable to the passenger.But when the airline fails to inform the passenger at least 24 hours in advance or if a passenger misses a connecting flight booked on the same ticket number, the airline must provide an alternate flight or compensation in addition to a full refund.How much is the compensation?According to Clause 3.3.2 of the CAR, if a passenger is not informed as per this timeline, the airline must pay compensation based on the flight’s block time – the total time from gate departure to gate arrival:Flights up to one hour: Rs 5,000 or the basic fare plus airline fuel charge (whichever is less).Flights between one and two hours: Rs 7,500 or the basic fare plus airline fuel charge (whichever is less).Flights longer than two hours: Rs 10,000 or the basic fare plus airline fuel charge (whichever is less).Clause 3.8.1 of the CAR mandates that while waiting for an alternate flight at the airport, passengers are entitled to meals and refreshments. If the wait extends overnight, the airline must provide hotel accommodation and transfers.‘Force majeure’ exceptionAirlines may deny compensation by citing “extraordinary circumstances”. Clauses 1.4 and 1.5 of the CAR exempt operating airlines from paying compensation if the cancellation is caused by events beyond their control.Story continues below this adThese events, known as force majeure, include political instability, natural disasters, civil war, floods, explosions, government regulations and strikes. The rules also exempt cancellations attributable to Air Traffic Control, meteorological conditions or security risks.However, the airline must demonstrate that it took all reasonable measures to avoid the cancellation.When consumer courts step inDespite the DGCA guidelines, disputes often arise when airlines cite “technical issues” or “operational reasons” to deny compensation. In such instances, passengers have successfully approached consumer courts under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging “deficiency in service”.Recent verdicts from various District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (DCDRC) and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) suggest that airlines cannot provide vague explanations to escape liability.Story continues below this ad‘Technical reasons’ must be provedIn December 2023, the NCDRC directed Air India to pay Rs 2 lakh in compensation to four passengers multiple flight delays in their journey from Thiruvananthapuram to Kolkata and then to Dibrugarh – that led them to wait at multiple airports for hours without adequate meals. The commission ruled that airlines cannot rely on “unilaterally determined rules” or generalised statements like “technical reasons” to deny liability. It stated that if there are confidential safety reasons for a cancellation, they must be submitted to the Commission in a sealed cover.Lower courts have applied this strict standard to IndiGo. In an order dated February 2025, the Ernakulam DCDRC ordered IndiGo to pay Rs 20,000 to a passenger whose connecting flight was cancelled. The airline claimed the flight was preponed and cancelled due to “operational reasons”, but failed to produce evidence. The Commission ruled that the sudden change caused “severe mental agony” and held the airline liable.Questionable defencesCourts have also penalised airlines for misleading claims regarding cancellations. In July 2024, the DCDRC in Rangareddy, Hyderabad, directed IndiGo to pay Rs 5 lakh to a family of five. The family received a cancellation email just three hours before departure, despite holding boarding passes. IndiGo contended this was a “voluntary booking cancellation” by the passengers. The commission found no evidence of such a request and termed the incident a “humiliation”, holding the airline liable for an “extreme degree of negligence”.Similarly, the Hyderabad District Commission-III rejected Go Air’s defence of operational issues beyond their reasonable control for cancelling a Maldives flight 10 days prior. The airline was ordered to refund the extra cost incurred by the passenger for booking alternative flights.Story continues below this adHigh penalties for disruptionsCourts have awarded substantial damages when cancellations affect large groups or involve severe negligence. In July 2024, the Hyderabad District Consumer Forum-II directed Alliance Air to pay Rs 12.8 lakh to 32 passengers after an abrupt cancellation disrupted their vacation. When the airline failed to comply, the Telangana High Court intervened in July 2025, directing the airline to honor the order with 12 per cent annual interest.In another case involving Alliance Air, a Delhi DCDRC awarded Rs 50,000 in August this year to a passenger for a six-hour delay where no basic amenities were provided, terming the deficiency in service as “mental torture”.The option of class actionIn scenarios involving mass cancellations affecting thousands of passengers – such as the recent IndiGo crisis – individual litigation can be cumbersome. The Consumer Protection Act offers a mechanism for collective redressal.Under Section 35(1)(c) of the act, a complaint can be filed by one or more consumers on behalf of numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the DCDRC.Story continues below this adIf a large group of passengers faces identical grievances – such as a lack of refund or compensation following a mass cancellation event – they can theoretically file a single representative petition. This provision allows for the aggregation of claims, potentially leading to significant liability for the airline if a systemic deficiency in service is established.