DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.206/18

Dipali Taneja

W/o Abhinav Rastogi

R/o B-48, Friends Colony.                                              ….Complainant

VERSUS

M/s Air India Ltd.

113, Airlinks House

Gurudwara Road

Rakab Ganj, Parliament Street                         ….Opposite Party

Date of Institution    : 23.7.2018

Date of Order          : 18.5.2022       

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

 Shri U.K.Tyagi

The complainant has requested this Commission to direct the M/s Air India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and cost of mental and physical agony etc.

The facts of the case are that the complainant with her sister i.e. Sugandha Malhotra and minor daughter namely, baby Prisha Rastogi aged about 5 years was returning to Delhi from Bangkok on 19.4.2018 through Air India Flight No.  AI-335. The complainant alongwith her daughter were served meal in the flight. When her daughter started consuming baby meal, the complainant noticed that there was an insect/stinking cockroach in the “Kheer”.  The entire food was stale, spoilt and contaminated.  The complainant and her sister called the Cabin Crew, namely, Shri Prateek and Md. Haider Ali Jaidi.  The Crew-members retorted asserting that they are not responsible for the food.  The complainant should contact the catering staff at Airport.  On asking the complaint book, they not only refused rather started shouting at the complainant.  Resultantly, a big scene was created by them in the flight.  The said incident was got recorded in the mobile.  On reaching Delhi airport, the complaint was lodged with the concerned official of the OP vide reference No.8480 dated 19.4.201.  Thereafter, several complaints through her sister were made through e-mail wherein she asked for adequate compensation and necessary action to be taken against the above mentioned crew members.  No action was taken by the OP against the Crew-members and meal-supplier. The negligent behaviour of the OP and deficiency in service led to the lodging of the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The OP, on the other hand, took preliminary objection,inter-alia, asserting that the complainant does not have any locus standi to file the instant complaint. The complainant had not raised any such issue earlier before the OP.  It was further added that complaint so made at the Airport Delhi was by (Mrs.) Sugandha Malhotra who was sitting at seat No. 26A. There is hardly any iota of evidence in her favour.  The other contentions so made in preliminary objection are of general nature. It was further maintained that OP denies all such contentions and contents of the complaint, the same being repugnant and contrary to the substantial facts of the case unless same are specifically admitted.  It was also contended by the OP that the said complainant has made self-contradictory, sham and bogus allegations and in fact, had never consumed the so called stale and contaminated meal, hence, no cause of action had ever arisen.  It is also denied that child was kept hungry through out this period.  The family members were not led to high humiliation and embarrassment.

The parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavit.  Written statement is filed so is rejoinder.  Oral arguments were heard and concluded. 

This Commission has taken note of the material placed on record and submissions made before us.  The complainant had denied the contentions/submissions vehemently vide its rejoinder as being wrong, misleading, mischievous and concocted.  The evidence in affidavit of complainant is gone through and it was exhorted that Mrs. Sugandha Malhotra , who was travelling with her sister and having seat No. 26A, sitting next to complainant. She along with her daughter was sitting at 25A & 25B seats.  The OP, vide its evidence in affidavit dismissed her complaint being distorted facts by deliberate concealment and suppression of true and material facts.  OP further stated that the complainant is liable to be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.PC for falsely deposing before this court.  The documents filed by the complainant here are of Mrs. Sugandha Malhotra. The same are inadmissible and not supported by affidavit under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The OP also made submissions in its written submission that OP did not serve any meals and the meal is served by TG Catering and Thai Catering Department for flights out bound from Bangkok Airport.  It was mentioned by OP that Section 21(2)(b), Carriage by Air Act, 2009 stipulates compensation claim to the extent of Rs. 1 Lakh only if the damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party.  The OP also raised objection on the quantum of damage and absence of supporting documents.

This Commission has examined all the material placed here.  It is true that the complainant has not annexed any authorization from Mrs. Sugandha Malhotra.  But it would be seen from the evidence by way of affidavit that she is elder sister and was travelling with them.  She occupied the seat No.26A and seats of complainant and her baby daughter were 25A & 25B.  They were sitting together.  Mrs. Sugandha Malhotra was in her relation of first degree. Since they were traveling together and it can safely assumed that all that which happened in flight, she was witness to the incident.

          It is also noticed that the complainant has established the fact of insect infested food by providing the photographs etc.  It is also of insignificance that complaint was lodged by one Mrs. Sugandha Malhotra.  Since complainant and her sister were travelling together in same flight, the complaint could be lodged by any close relation.  It would be seen from the reply written by the senior officers of the OP that the meals provided in flight are procured from the Five Star Kitchen.  But it is responsibility of the OP to serve the food of hygenic quality. As such, the OP has to shoulder this responsibility of serving insect-infested meal.  The complainant vide various documents has proved its case. This Commission opines that the OP is negligent and committed deficiency in service to some extent.  As regards to quantum of damage, we intend to weigh in favour of OP where he maintained that the compensation of Rs. 5 Lakh is of high quantum.  It should be proportionate to the damages.  It was further maintained by OP that no damage was caused as alleged insect infested food was not consumed.

          In considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission directs OP to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- for its prayer mentioned at (a) & (b) of its complaint within three months from the receipt of this order failing which the interest @9% p.a shall be levied till its realization.    

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.