Kannadiputhur Sundararaman Suresh And Interglobe Aviation Limited, Air India Limited
CCI competition order Case No. 42 of 2025 · 11 Mar 2026
CCI competition order Case No. 42 of 2025 · 11 Mar 2026
Summary
Check the official recordThe Competition Commission of India (CCI) closed an information filed by Kannadiputhur Sundararaman Suresh against Interglobe Aviation Limited (OP-1) and Air India Limited (OP-2) regarding alleged anti-competitive practices in airline cancellation charges. The Informant alleged that the airlines acted in concert and abused their dominant positions by imposing excessive cancellation fees, violating the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Commission found no evidence of an agreement between the parties to influence charges and noted that collective dominance is outside the scope of the Competition Act, 2002. Furthermore, the Commission observed that refund policies are disclosed in advance and applied non-discriminatorily. Consequently, the Commission found no prima facie case of contravention and closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.
Key dates
Who is affected
If you do not comply
Case No. 42 of 2025
Page 1 of 8
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 42 of 2025
In Re:
Kannadiputhur Sundararaman Suresh
Informant
And
Interglobe Aviation Limited Opposite Party No. 1 (OP-1)
Air India Limited
Opposite Party No. 2 (OP-2)
CORAM
Ravneet Kaur Chairperson
Anil Agrawal Member
Sweta Kakkad Member
Deepak Anurag Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
Case No. 42 of 2025
Page 2 of 8
The Informant has submitted that OP-1, with over 65% market share in the domestic sector, is by far the largest and dominant player. OP-2, accounts for 27% market share. Together, both these players control over 90% market share and dominate the domestic aviation market. It is alleged that by acting individually and in concert, they have been maintaining unconscionable and illegal rates of cancellation charges. They are guilty of imposing unfair discriminatory and arbitrary conditions and prices for sale of services. The Informant states that although OP-2 may not have as large a market share as OP- 1, by virtue of it being a duopolistic player along with OP-1 and adopting and maintaining the same practice of OP-1, they are in a position to act independently of competitive forces in the matter of cancellation charges.
The Informant has alleged that on a plain reading of Section 4(2) of the Act, the practice of OP-2 of unfair cancellation would also amount to abuse of its dominant position. The Informant also states that OP-1 and OP-2 are guilty of engaging in anti- competitive practice by acting in concert that has the effect of determining the cancellation charges of air tickets. The Informant has submitted that the airlines' practice of levying penal charges for ticket cancellation by a passenger is not only irrational and indiscriminate, but is also unfair, abuse of dominant position and violative of the law of contract.
The Informant has claimed that under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, where a contract mentions a penalty amount in case of breach, the non-breaching party would still be entitled only to a "reasonable compensation" not exceeding the amount mentioned as penalty. The Informant states that, if a passenger cancels a ticket and thereby breaks the contract, the airlines is at best entitled to a "reasonable compensation". This reasonable compensation must represent a genuine estimate of loss suffered as a result of the breach (which in the present instance, it clearly does not). The Informant has stated that when a passenger cancels their booking, the airline is placed in the same position as before the passenger made the booking in the first place. As per the Informant, the law of contract mandates compensation for loss on account of breach; it does not permit the non-breaching party to exploit the situation and profit
Case No. 42 of 2025
Page 3 of 8
from it. The Informant claims that the cancellation does not put the airline in any position worse than it was in prior to the booking, and, thus, the airline does not suffer any loss on account of the cancellation. The Informant adds that the question of loss would arise only if, as a direct result of the cancellation, the airline is prevented from selling that ticket to another potential passenger.
The Informant has submitted that such a situation can arise only if immediately prior to the cancellation (a) the flight was fully booked, (b) therefore, a purchaser who wanted to book a ticket had to be refused, and (c) after the cancellation there was no purchaser for a ticket on the same flight. However, the Informant states that if any of the above conditions are not satisfied, there can be no presumption of the airlines suffering any loss, especially in today's aviation market.
The Informant has referred to his own experience where he paid a sum of Rs. 12,488 and booked the following tickets through MakeMyTrip.com on 03.11.2024:
| Route | Airline | Travel date | Amount paid( In Rs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chennai-Kolkata | Air India | 10-11-2024 | 6,010 |
| Kolkata-Chennai | Indigo | 12-11-2024 | 6,477.5 |
The Informant has submitted that within minutes, he realized that he had booked for the wrong dates as the intended dates were 10.11.2024 and 12.11.2024. The Informant cancelled the tickets for which he received a refund of a mere Rs. 3,054/- after deducting the penalty and other charges made by OP-1 and OP-2. The Informant states that a penalty of Rs. 9,434/-, which works out to 75.54% of the booking amount for a cancellation made within a few minutes is in stark contrast with the general international practice of permitting free cancellation in the first 24 or 48 hours.
Case No. 42 of 2025
Page 4 of 8
| Airlines: Air India | Route: Chennai-Kolkata | Travel date: 10-11-2024 | Details (In Rs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount Paid | 6,010.00 | ||
| Total Deduction | -5,517.5 | ||
| Airline cancellation Fee | 4,200 | ||
| MMT cancellation Fee | 300 | ||
| MMT convenience Fee | 267.5 | ||
| Ancillary charges | 750 | ||
| Total Refund | 493 |
| Airline Indigo | Route: Kolkata-Chennai | Travel date: 12-11-2024 | Details (In Rs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount Paid | 6,477.5 | ||
| Total Deduction | -3,916.5 | ||
| Airline cancellation Fee | 2,999 | ||
| MMT cancellation Fee | 300 | ||
| MMT convenience Fee | 267.5 | ||
| Ancillary charges | 350 | ||
| Total Refund | 2,561 |
The Informant has alleged that this conduct of OP-1 and OP-2 is an egregious case of extortion and airlines in India have been unjustly profiting through this unfair and abusive trade practice, which has long gone unchecked, to the serious detriment of the passengers who have no option but to suffer. The Informant has further stated that if a passenger cancels their ticket, it can, under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, invite only "reasonable compensation" for the airlines, assuming there is a loss.
The Informant has also stated that usurping and retaining the lion's share of the fare as cancellation "charges" when the airline has not incurred any loss on account of the cancellation, is illegal enrichment, made possible by the dominant position OPs hold.
Case No. 42 of 2025
Page 5 of 8
This amounts to an unfair trade practice and an abuse of their dominant position in the domestic civil aviation sector in India.
In light of the averments made above, the Informant has prayed for the following reliefs from the Commission: (i) To investigate/enquire into the abusive, unfair and anti-competitive practice of Indigo Airlines and Air India charging extortionate amounts in the name of cancellation fees, and pass appropriate orders directing the domestic airlines operating in India to restrict the cancellation charges to a reasonable level i.e. 10% of the fare excluding the taxes, or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is lower, considering Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; (ii) Further, the airlines may be directed to not charge for cancellations made within 24 hours of the booking, considering the international practice in this regard. The Commission may also be pleased to order them to disgorge the amounts that they have collected beyond a reasonable level that the Commission may be pleased to determine.
The Commission considered the present matter in its ordinary meeting held on 14.01.2026 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course.
The Commission noted that the Informant has made an allegation of violation of Section 3(1) and Section 3(3)(a) of the Act. The presumption under Section 3(3) of the Act would require existence of an agreement, and establishing conduct which is presumed to be anti- competitive. Under Section 2(b) of the Act; an agreement need not be “formal or in writing” and it may be any arrangement, understanding or action in concert. However, the Informant, in support of his allegation that the OPs are acting in concert, has not submitted any evidence/conduct to adduce that OP-1 and OP-2 have entered into an agreement, whether formal or informal, to influence cancellation charges.