The District Court, South-East District, Saket Courts has awarded ₹1,08,80,000 in damages to Delhi-based travel agency ABS Tour & Travels in a commercial dispute against SNV Aviation Pvt Ltd, which operates as Akasa Air.

The suit arose from the cancellation of eight group PNRs comprising 640 seats booked in April 2023 for travel on the Delhi–Goa and Goa–Delhi sectors between December 23, 2023 and January 13, 2024, covering the Christmas and New Year peak season. The travel agency had paid 25% of the total booking amount ₹4,82,280 through the airline’s agent portal, following which the PNRs were generated. On May 29, 2023, the airline cancelled all eight PNRs. The advance amount was later refunded in August 2023.

The plaintiff contended that once the PNRs were generated upon receipt of advance payment, a binding contract had come into existence. It argued that the abrupt cancellation, months before the balance payment was due, deprived it of the opportunity to sell the tickets during the festive season when fares typically surge. Relying on fare data placed on record, the plaintiff claimed that ticket prices for the relevant period had risen to approximately ₹17,000 per seat, resulting in a total loss of profit of ₹1,08,80,000.

The airline defended the cancellation on the ground that for group bookings exceeding 70 passengers, 50% of the total fare was required as advance payment at the time of booking, whereas the plaintiff had paid only 25%. It also argued that the damages claim was speculative, that no tickets had actually been sold, that the advance had been refunded, and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate its alleged loss.

The Court rejected the airline’s defence, noting that no contemporaneous document was produced to establish that a 50% advance condition was applicable at the time of booking. The Court observed that the PNRs were generated after receipt of 25% advance and that no notice demanding any shortfall was issued before cancellation. In the absence of proof of a binding contractual stipulation permitting such cancellation, the Court held that the airline’s action amounted to breach of contract under Sections 37 and 39 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

On the question of damages, the Court held that loss of expected profits is recoverable where performance of a contract is wrongfully prevented. It accepted the plaintiff’s computation based on prevailing festive season fares and held that mathematical precision is not required so long as the assessment is grounded in documentary evidence and commercial probability. The total damages were calculated as 640 seats multiplied by ₹17,000 per seat, amounting to ₹1,08,80,000.

However, the Court declined the claim for interest at 18% per annum, observing that there was no contractual stipulation supporting such rate and that the claim pertained to unliquidated damages. The claim for damages on account of mental agony and harassment was also rejected, the Court noting that in purely commercial business-to-business transactions, non-pecuniary damages are not ordinarily awarded in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The suit was accordingly decreed for ₹1,08,80,000 without interest.