Law & Justice
Chandigarh Commission Orders Emirates and Yatra to Pay Rs 1.88 Lakh After Dubai Floods Blocked Flight
The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld a May 4, 2026 order holding Emirates Airlines and travel portal Yatra Online jointly and severally liable after a man and his wife were denied boarding on a flight to Italy during floods in Dubai. The commission found the passengers were not informed about the disruption in advance or offered alternative arrangements. It directed the companies to pay Rs 1.88 521.87 for additional expenditure on alternative tickets, with 9 % annual interest from the complaint filing date, and Rs 10 000 for mental agony, harassment and litigation costs. The order, dated October 28, 2026, dismissed Emirates’ appeal against the district commission’s decision.
Raghav Jain, a Chandigarh resident, had booked tickets for himself and his wife through Yatra Online for a New Delhi–Milan trip via Dubai on April 19, 2024, and a return from Thira, Greece, to New Delhi via Dubai on May 10, 2024. He paid Rs 145 384.99 for the booking. Jain alleged that when they arrived at Delhi airport on April 19, they were denied boarding because of flight disruptions caused by floods and adverse weather in Dubai. He said neither company had informed them sufficiently in advance or arranged an alternative flight. He was forced to purchase last‑minute tickets on Saudia Airlines for Rs 213 103.87 and claimed loss of a day’s business opportunities and Rs 23 600 paid toward prepaid accommodation. He also alleged that Yatra failed to reissue their return tickets despite repeated follow‑ups. The companies initially indicated a refund of Rs 54 938.50 but later reduced it to Rs 24 582.
Emirates attributed the disruption to unprecedented floods and storms in Dubai between April 14 and 19, 2024, and said public notices were issued through social media, its website and other online platforms. It argued that individually informing every affected passenger was not feasible. Yatra’s defence was struck off by the district commission on November 12, 2024, for failing to file its written version within the prescribed period.
The bench, comprising President Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and member Preetinder Singh, noted that adverse weather could explain flight disruptions but did not absolve the airline of its responsibility to inform passengers and arrange suitable alternatives. It observed that Jain and his wife were informed about the disruption on April 19, the day of travel, after they had already reached Delhi airport. Emirates failed to establish that they were informed earlier or offered an alternative flight. The commission found that the district commission had correctly calculated the additional expenditure at Rs 1 88 521.87 after deducting the Rs 24 582 refund from the cost of alternative tickets. No legal infirmity warranted interference.
The state commission dismissed Emirates’ appeal and upheld the directions requiring both companies to pay the amounts specified, with the interest and penalty provisions as outlined in the district commission’s order.