A consumer commission in Kerala has ordered AirAsia India Limited to compensate a farmer after a flight delay allegedly led to the destruction of a rare hybrid jackfruit sapling he had brought from Indonesia.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Palakkad found the airline guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to pay a total of ₹90,750 to the complainant, covering ticket costs, additional travel expenses, compensation, and litigation charges.
The dispute arose from a journey undertaken by a Palakkad-based farmer involved in cultivating and researching hybrid fruit varieties. In August 2025, he travelled from Kochi to Indonesia through Kuala Lumpur to obtain a hybrid jackfruit sapling for his agricultural project.
Trouble began on the return leg of the trip when his AirAsia flight from Medan-Kualanamu to Kuala Lumpur was delayed for several hours. The delay caused him to miss his connecting flight to Kochi, despite having a layover of more than three hours.
According to the complaint, the farmer informed airline officials about the fragile and time-sensitive nature of the plant he was carrying and sought alternate travel arrangements. He claimed he was willing to bear additional expenses if required. However, he was allegedly told that the next available flight to Kochi would only depart three days later.
The farmer maintained that the information was inaccurate because he subsequently managed to secure a seat on another AirAsia service the very next day without assistance from the airline.
By the time he reached his destination, the sapling had deteriorated and was no longer viable, defeating the purpose of the overseas trip. He also incurred extra accommodation and travel expenses due to the disruption.
AirAsia did not appear before the Commission or submit a response despite receiving notice, prompting the proceedings to continue ex parte.
After examining travel records and supporting documents, the Commission concluded that the airline’s delay and failure to provide adequate assistance had caused both financial loss and mental distress to the complainant.
Holding the carrier responsible, the Commission ordered the airline to refund ₹30,750 towards airfare, reimburse ₹25,000 spent on travel and accommodation, pay ₹25,000 as compensation for deficient service, and provide ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.
The order stipulates that the amount must be paid within 45 days. If the airline fails to comply within that period, it will be required to pay an additional ₹500 per month until the entire amount is cleared.
In its findings, the Commission observed that the complainant had suffered both monetary loss and mental agony as a direct consequence of the airline’s service shortcomings, making compensation justified.
