KLM Denies Boarding to Family After Rs 49 Lakh Flight At Bengaluru

A long-planned family trip from Bengaluru to Peru has led to a court directive and legal action. The traveller who filed the complaint is J S Sathishkumar. He is chairman of a medical institution in Salem, Tamil Nadu.

Court order and FIR

According to Filmogaz.com, a Karnataka court has asked police to register an FIR. The order names senior KLM executives, including the airline’s CEO and COO. The direction came from a civil judge and judicial magistrate in Devanahalli.

The court covering Kempegowda International Airport issued the directive. The FIR follows a complaint filed after a denied boarding incident.

Tickets and denied boarding

The incident occurred on June 19, 2024. Eight business-class tickets were booked for the trip. The seats were non-refundable and cost about Rs 49 lakh.

The family planned to return on July 3, 2024. They arrived at Bengaluru airport early and completed initial formalities. Airline staff informed them, shortly before departure, that they could not board.

Dispute over visa rules

KLM staff cited the lack of a Peruvian visa as the reason for denial. Sathishkumar disagrees with that assessment. He says Peru allows Indian passport holders with valid visas or residence permits from the US, UK, Australia or Schengen to enter without a separate Peruvian visa.

The complainant asserts the airline misread Peru’s entry rules. He argues the family had the necessary documentation under those provisions.

Alleged red-flagging and travel fallout

The complaint alleges the family were later “red-flagged” by the airline. This action purportedly caused problems on later trips.

• One family member was stopped and questioned in Singapore.
• Sathishkumar himself faced repeated questioning in Australia.
• The complainant has not yet received a ticket refund.

Sathishkumar says the case seeks accountability. He warns that similar errors could affect other travellers.

Airline response

KLM said it must follow applicable travel and immigration regulations. The airline said passengers must carry valid and correct travel documents. It expressed regret for the inconvenience some passengers experienced.

The dispute raises broader questions about carrier responsibilities, document checks and passenger rights. Legal proceedings are now underway to resolve those issues.