Punjab Consumer Commission Holds Singapore Airlines Liable for Failing to Serve Food [Read Order]

Chandigarh: The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Singapore Airlines deficient in service for failing to provide food, and milk for an 11-month-old child, during a 15–16 hour Delhi–Melbourne flight, ruling that an airline is not absolved of its duty to provide ordinary meal service merely because a passenger did not opt for a special meal. The Commission reduced the District Commission’s award, which included a refund of the full ticket price, to a composite Rs 50,000.

A Bench of H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member, and Kiran Sibal, Member was hearing First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, filed by Singapore Airlines against the District Commission, Ropar’s order dated 03.01.2023 in CC/86/2022. The District Commission had directed refund of Rs 1,25,000 with 7 per cent interest, Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 11,000 as litigation expenses against the airline and its travel agent, Bipasha Aviation.

The complainant, Jaspreet Singh, had bought three tickets through the travel agent for his wife, minor daughter and mother-in-law, who flew from Delhi to Melbourne on 04.03.2020. He said the cabin crew did not serve food during the journey, told the passengers that their food had not been confirmed, gave one meal only after his wife protested, which the wife and mother-in-law shared, and gave no milk to the 11-month-old child. He complained by email on 09.03.2020, and the airline replied on 13.03.2020 that no meal request or preference had been made and advised him to contact his travel agent.

The airline argued that it had no cause of action against it as the complainant did not himself hire its services, that no prior request for a vegetarian or special meal was made at booking, that food was provided from the menu, and that refund was unjustified without deficiency. The complainant and the travel agent did not appear before the Commission.

Rejecting the cause-of-action plea, the Commission noted that the flight was operated by the airline and the complainant’s family actually travelled on it, making the airline the service provider. On the main defence, it held:

“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 noted that the complaint email alleged more than the absence of a particular meal, that the airline had itself said that a passenger can choose a meal on board, and that the airline placed no sufficient material to show the allegation was incorrect or that food was in fact provided. It added that an 11-month-old child on such a long flight required reasonable care and consideration, and held the finding of deficiency in service need not be disturbed.

On quantum, however, it found the compensation slightly on the higher side. The passengers had completed the journey and availed the principal service, and the deficiency related only to ancillary in-flight services, so a refund of the entire fare with interest was disproportionate. Still, the hardship of a long flight with an infant, and the airline’s failure to resolve the grievance afterwards, justified reasonable compensation.

The appeal was partly allowed and the airline was directed to pay Rs 50,000 as a composite sum for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses, within 45 days of receiving a certified copy. The Rs 1,03,040 deposited by the airline at the time of the appeal, with accrued interest, is to be remitted to the District Commission, which may pass appropriate orders on its release after the limitation period expires.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. I.S. Kakkar, Advocate.

Case Title: Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Jaspreet Singh & Anr., First Appeal No. 256 of 2023

[Read Order]