Lawyer approaches Delhi High Court against airline practice of overbooking

The Delhi High Court today issued notice to Air India, the Director General of Civil Aviation, and the Central government in a petition filed challenging the practice of overbooking..Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw issued notice to the Respondents today with advocate Ashish Virmani appearing for advocate Pallav Mongia..The practice of overbooking is one where the number of confirmed tickets is more than the number of seats/ capacity of the aeroplane. This practice is permitted by clause 3.2 of the Civil Aviation Requirements Section 3 – Air Transport, Series ‘M’, Part IV, Issue I, dated August 6, 2010 (CAR)..Mongia came to know of the practice of overbooking when he went to board a Patna-bound Air India flight with a confirmed ticket. He was, however, denied a boarding pass by the airline officials. The supervisor then informed Mongia that the flight is overbooked “as a matter of practice and despite having a confirmed ticket, the petitioner cannot be issued a boarding pass.”.When the Petitioner protested, he was directed to refer to the relevant impugned clause of CAR, which permits Air India to overbook flights. As per the petition, the petitioner suffered grave monetary and reputational loss, personally and professionally, culminating in the present challenge to the impugned clause in CAR..In his petition, Mongia has challenged Clause 3.2 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Momgia has claimed that the practice of overbooking is exploitative and illegal..“…impugned CAR is liable to be struck down since it permits overbooking by issuing more number of tickets than the seats available on a flight, masquerading the wait-listed tickets as confirmed tickets, which is grossly arbitrary, unfair, exploitative and illegal, and which misleads the confirmed ticket holder to believe that he/she would be permitted to board the aircraft.”.He has further contended that the practice of overbooking manes an unreasonable classification within the class of confirmed ticket holders – those who are permitted to board the flight and those who are not..“….the impugned CAR is liable to be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the purported provision seeks to permit overbooking of scheduled flights to reduce the possibility of flights departing with unoccupied or empty seats but makes an unreasonable classification between confirmed ticket holder who are permitted to board the flight, and those who are denied boarding..…impugned CAR is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since it purports to create a further classification within a class of confirmed ticket holders, which act is completely wholly arbitrary.”.Mongia has further submitted that the relevant clasue of CAR cannot be read in a manner so as to give a free hand to exploit the confirmed ticket holders by overbooking flights according to the whms and fancies of the airlines without any guidelines or cap to the extent which overbooking can be permitted..Alleging that the practice of overbooking is means of unjust enrichment of the airlines especially at the expense of the passengers, Mongia has prayed for, inter alia, the following:.“(a) Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing and declaring clause 3.2 of the Civil Aviation Requirements Section 3 – Air Transport, Series ‘M’, Part IV, Issue I, dated 06.08.2010 as being unconstitutional to the extent it permits Overbooking of flights; and.(b) Issue a Writ of Declaration, or any other appropriate writ order or direction, declaring the practice of ‘Overbooking’ of flights by the Respondent No. 2 as illegal and violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as being completely misleading, arbitrary and unfair;”.The matter will now be heard on February 19..Image taken from here