- Ernakulam Commission ordered Rs 10 lakh compensation after Qatar Airways denied boarding passes to two children.
- Ron was refused at Kochi, and Rain was later refused at Doha on the same return trip to Venice.
- The airline must pay within 45 days, or interest at 9% applies from the complaint filing date.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Qatar Airways to pay Rs 10 lakh to two children after the airline refused them boarding passes at Kochi and Doha over alleged travel-document deficiencies. The order followed a complaint from their parents, who said the same paperwork had been accepted on earlier parts of the journey.
Ron Roshan, 6, was stopped first at Kochi. Rain Roshan, 1, was later denied boarding at Doha. The family’s return trip to Venice then broke apart.
The complaint was filed by Roshan Jose and his wife, Vinaya, who worked in Italy as a technician and a staff nurse. They were travelling with Ron and Rain after an earlier journey from Venice to Kochi.
The parents said the airline accepted the children’s documents on the outbound portions of the trip. The dispute emerged when the family tried to return to Italy.
At the Kochi check-in counter, airline staff issued boarding passes to the other family members but refused one to Ron. The reason given, according to the complaint, was inadequate travel documentation.
The family challenged that decision. They said Ron had already travelled from Venice to Kochi using the same documents.
They also told the airline that his school was scheduled to reopen the next day. The request to permit him to travel was rejected, and relatives took the child home while the rest of the family continued toward Doha.
The family split after a second refusal in Doha
Jose, Vinaya and their younger son flew from Kochi to Doha. At the transit point, the airline refused to issue a boarding pass to Rain, the complaint said.
That refusal involved the same document dispute. The parents argued that the paperwork had already been accepted for the Kochi-to-Doha leg.
The issue remained unresolved until the connecting flight to Venice departed. Jose then returned to India with the younger child. Vinaya travelled alone to Venice on a later flight.
The family alleged that the two refusals caused hardship and financial loss. Their complaint placed the airline’s decisions against the earlier acceptance of the documents during the journey.
The commission directed the airline to compensate the children. It also awarded litigation expenses.
The order sets payment terms alongside compensation
The order sets a deadline and an interest consequence if payment does not arrive on time:
| Order item | Amount or deadline |
|---|---|
| Compensation to the children | Rs 10 lakh |
| Litigation expenses | Rs 25,000 |
| Payment deadline | 45 days |
| Interest if unpaid | 9% from the date of filing of the complaint until payment |
The additional award covers the family’s litigation expenses. The interest provision applies if the ordered payment remains outstanding after the 45-day period.
The complaint identified both children as claimants affected by separate boarding refusals. Ron was stopped at the origin airport in Kochi, while Rain was refused at the Doha connection.
The parents’ account also drew a distinction between the documents themselves and how the airline handled them at different points. The family said those papers supported the Venice-to-Kochi journey and were accepted again for Kochi to Doha.
That acceptance did not resolve the later checks. Ron’s boarding pass was withheld in Kochi, and Rain’s was withheld in Doha.
The family said the consequences extended beyond a missed flight. Ron had to stay with relatives because of the school schedule, while the later refusal left Jose and the younger child returning to India and Vinaya making the trip to Venice by herself.
The complaint centered on inconsistent document acceptance
The parents’ case relied on the sequence of decisions at the two airports. The documents were accepted on earlier legs, they said, but treated as insufficient when the children sought boarding for the return journey.
The complaint said the disagreement could not be settled before the Venice-bound connection left Doha. That forced the family to make separate travel arrangements.
The commission’s award covers the two children rather than describing the dispute as a single missed-boarding incident. Each child faced a separate refusal, at a different airport and at a different stage of the itinerary.
The record identifies Ron as 6 and Rain as 1. Their parents, Roshan Jose and Vinaya, had been travelling between Italy and India with both children.
The payment period now runs for 45 days. If the amount remains unpaid, interest will apply at 9% from the date the complaint was filed until payment.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
