Chandigarh, Oct 22
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Singapore Airlines to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to a passenger whose family members were not provided proper food during a 15-hour flight from Delhi to Melbourne, including milk for his 11-month-old daughter.
The Additional Bench comprising Judicial Member H.P.S. Mahal and Member Kiran Sibal partly allowed an appeal filed by the airline against a January 2023 order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar, which had directed the airline and a travel agency, Bipasha Aviation, to refund Rs 1.25 lakh towards the air tickets, along with interest, Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 11,000 towards litigation expenses.
The complaint was filed by Jaspreet Singh, who had purchased three tickets for his wife, minor daughter and mother-in-law to travel from Delhi to Melbourne on March 4, 2020, through the travel agency.
According to the complaint, the passengers were not provided proper food during the approximately 15-16-hour journey.
Singh alleged that when his family members asked the airline staff about the meals, they were told that their food had not been confirmed and that meals would first be served to passengers whose food bookings had been confirmed.
He further alleged that his wife and mother-in-law eventually had to share a single meal, while his 11-month-old daughter was not provided even milk.
Singh subsequently lodged a complaint with the airline through email on March 9, 2020. The airline initially assured him that the matter would be investigated but later stated that no request for vegetarian or special meals had been made during the booking process.
The airline challenged the District Commission's order, contending that the complainant had not requested any specific meals in advance and that food had been served in accordance with the menu. It also argued that there was no deficiency in service warranting a refund of the ticket fare. The airline further argued that the complainant had not directly hired or availed its services for the grievance raised against it.
Rejecting this contention, the Commission observed that the airline was responsible for providing the contracted air travel service with reasonable care, irrespective of whether the tickets had been booked directly or through a travel agent. It noted that the complainant's grievance was not limited to the non-provision of a particular type of meal, but concerned the failure to provide proper food during a long-haul journey, including milk for an infant.
"It is pertinent to mention here that the fact that a passenger may not have opted for a special meal does not mean that the airline is absolved of its basic duty to provide the ordinary meal service forming part of the air journey, particularly when the journey was of 15–16 hours," the Commission said.
It further observed that the presence of an 11-month-old child on such a long journey called for reasonable care and consideration from the airline.
The Commission also recorded that the airline had failed to place sufficient material on record to establish that the complainant's allegations were factually incorrect or that the requisite food and reasonable facilities had been provided to the passengers.
"In these circumstances, the explanation furnished by appellant/OP No.1 is not convincing," it said, upholding the finding that the airline was deficient in service.
However, the Commission held that directing a refund of the entire ticket fare, along with interest, was disproportionate since the passengers had undertaken the journey and received the principal service for which payment had been made. It observed that the deficiency was related to the manner in which in-flight services were rendered and not to a complete failure to provide air transportation.
"The inconvenience and hardship caused during a journey of approximately 15–16 hours, particularly in the case of a passenger travelling with an 11-month-old child, cannot be brushed aside," the Commission said.
Holding that reasonable compensation was warranted, it partly allowed the airline's appeal and directed it to pay Rs 50,000 as a composite amount towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, instead of the refund and other amounts awarded by the District Commission. The airline has been directed to comply with the order within 45 days of receiving its certified copy.
The Commission also ordered that the Rs 1,03,040 deposited by the airline while filing the appeal, along with any accrued interest, be remitted to the District Commission, which may pass an appropriate order regarding its release in accordance with law.
