Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/635/2019

Ashok Kumar Vig - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

04 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ashok Kumar Vig, S/o Late.C.L.Vig, age 72 years, R/o G-301, Rail Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector-4, Panchkula (Haryana).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Thai Airways International Public Company Limited, Room No.OL-28, 4^th Floor, Terminal Building, Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110037 through its Authorized Signatory. Email:  

… Opposite Parties

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant got booked air tickets from Delhi to Melbourne via Bangkok. The said tickets were booked for 21.09.2018 from New Delhi to Bangkok and for 22.09.2019 from Bangkok to Melbourne. The tickets were purchased from OP No.2 which is annexed as Annexure C-1. As per ticket the meal option was given by the complainant. As per complaint, it was specifically mentioned on the ticket Hindu Vegetarian Meal. As per complainant, he is strictly vegetarian by birth. The complainant was served meal by OP No.1 airlines during the flight from New Delhi to Bangkok on 21.09.2018. The complainant chewed few bites and he realized that there is something wrong in the meal. Upon enquiry he was informed that he has been served a non-veg meal. The complainant was shocked and deeply hurt his religious sentiments and was mentally disturbed. The numbers of emails have been sent to OP No.1. The emails which clearly shows that the OPs have failed to provide satisfactory services to the complainant. The emails are annexed as Annexure C-3 to C-6.

         The complainant was in Melbourne till 11.03.2019 and he could not take any legal action against the OP No.1. A copy of ticket, passport and immigration stamp is annexed as Annexure C-7 to C-9. Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.      Opposite Party No.1 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case the stand of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the special meal booked in the name of the complainant for the journey from New Delhi to Melbourne was Asian Vegetarian Meal and not Hindu Vegetarian Meal. It is also mentioned that the complainant’s request for an Asian Vegetarian Meal was duly noted in the PNR and accordingly a sufficient number of Asian Vegetarian Meals were also loaded on the flight in question, to be served to the passengers including the complainant which is annexed as Annexure R-1. The complainant’s booking showing the special service request of Asian Vegetarian Meal which is also annexed as Annexure R-2. As per his request made to the crew of Opposite Party No.1, and was also duly informed that the Hindu Meal was not a vegetarian meal. It may also be stated that as per the feed-back received from the concerned crew-member the complainant did not seem upset but rather pleased at being served two meals. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint. 
3.     Opposite Party No.2 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case the stand of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the complainant claims that he got non-vegetarian meal on board during his journey from New Delhi to Bangkok instead of vegetarian meal. Further while Opposite Party No.2 booked the ticket, vegetarian meal request was pre-updated at our end which was clearly mentioned on the ticket. In the whole process we are not at fault. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.     The Opposite Party has admitted that the complainant had booked an Asian Vegetarian Meal, which is evident from the boarding pass. However, when the complainant was served this opted meal. He told the crew members that he wanted Hindu Vegetarian Meal, instead of Asian Vegetarian Meal. Due to this communication gap with the crew members, the complainant was served Hindu Non-Veg Meal. Due to this reason only and on the request of the complainant himself, he was served this meal. It was argued by OP No.1 that so many passengers travel daily in their flights, but such incidents are very rare. On perusal of Paragraph-18 of the reply of OP No.1, it is observed that it has apologized for the inconvenience & displeasure caused on this occasion. On perusal of Paragraph-20 (Annexure R-5), it is observed from the internal inquiry that the complainant was served HNML (Non-Veg Meal) instead of AVML (Vegetarian Meal).
8.     It may be stated here that the above said act and conduct of the respondents by serving non-vegetarian meals instead of “Vegetarian Meals” to the complainant not only amounts to grave negligence and deficiency in service on its part, but in our considered opinion, it is also an attempt to hurt complainant’s religious sentiments, especially, being Hindu and pure vegetarian. Generally, by faith, it is considered as a sin in the eyes of God. Though, in this types of cases, there cannot be actual compensation, yet, the non-pecuniary loss includes the compensation for anguish of the mind, mental tribulations, mental or physical shock, pain, suffering disappointment, frustration, unhappiness, etc. We hold that there was gross deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties in serving meals to the complainant aboard the aircraft, during the course of journey.
9.     For the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the present Consumer Complaint qua Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

1. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.