Punjab consumer court orders Singapore Airlines to pay ₹50k for not serving food on 15-hour flight

The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held Singapore Airlines liable for deficiency in service after a passenger alleged that his wife, mother-in-law and 11-month-old daughter were not given proper food during a 15-hour flight from Delhi to Melbourne.

The Commission, however, partly allowed the airline's appeal and reduced the relief awarded previously by the District Consumer Commission.

The State Commission directed it to pay ₹50,000 as composite compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, instead of refunding the entire ticket fare of ₹1.25 lakh with interest.

A coram of Judicial Member HPS Mahal and Member Kiran Sibal held that the absence of a request for special meals did not absolve an airline of its obligation to provide ordinary meals during a long flight.

"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," said the October 7 order.

The case arose from a complaint filed by one Jaspreet Singh, whose wife, 11-month-old daughter and mother-in-law travelled from Delhi to Melbourne on March 4, 2020. Singh alleged that Singapore Airlines staff had failed to provide his family with proper food during the 15–16-hour journey, including milk for his infant daughter.

Singh emailed the airline on March 9, 2020, raising the grievance. The airline initially said it would investigate the matter but later responded that no request for vegetarian or special meals had been made and advised him to contact his travel agent.

Singh subsequently approached the District Consumer Commission at Ropar, seeking a refund of ₹1.25 lakh and ₹10 lakh in compensation.

In January 2023, the District Commission had directed the airline and travel agent to refund the ticket fare with 7% annual interest, pay ₹25,000 in compensation and ₹11,000 in litigation expenses.

Challenging this order, Singapore Airlines argued that no special meals had been requested and that it had provided food from its regular menu.

The State Commission, however, rejecting the airline's defence. It held that the absence of a special meal request did not absolve the airlines of its obligation to provide ordinary meals during a long flight. It also noted that the airline had failed to produce sufficient evidence that the passengers had been provided adequate food.

However, since the passengers had completed their journey, the Commission held that refunding the entire ticket fare would be a disproportionate penalty.

"The deficiency established against the appellant (Singapore Airlines) relates to the manner in which the ancillary/in-flight services were rendered and not to complete failure to provide the contracted air transportation service," said the Commission.

It added that the hardship faced by the family, particularly while travelling with an infant, warranted compensation.

"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," observed the Commission.

It accordingly reduced the relief to ₹50,000 as consolidated compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, payable to the complainant within 45 days.

Advocate IS Kakkar appeared for the Singapore Airlines.

[Read Order]