Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President — This order would dispose of two complaints Nos. C-44 and C-45 both of 1995 arising out of common facts. In both the complainants, Mr. R.P. Jain in the former and Dr. Tarun Kumar in the latter travelled by flight S. 2002 from Bombay to Delhi on 20.8.94 by Sahara India Airlines, OP-1. Both are stated to be orthodox and strict vegetrarian. The dinner served on the flight was marked vegetarian. The complainants took part of it and discovered that they had been served a non-vegetarian dish viz. chicken curry. They lodged protest. The Commander of the flight apologised in writing promising to take corrective action. The caterer OP-2, also acknowledged the mistake and tendered apology. About six months later the present complaints have been filed in this Commission claiming Rs. 7 lacs each with 24% interest thereon from 20.8.94 till payment. The grounds for the claim are, (i) deficiency in service, (ii) that religious sentiments of the complainants had been hurt, (iii) that the complainants are facing social ostracism.

2. Mr. B.S. More, learned Counsel for the complainants invited our attention to Indian Airlines v. S.N. Sinha, I (1992) CPJ 62 (NC)=(1991) 1 CO.LJ 224 (NCDRC), in which award of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation by the State Commission was affirmed by the National Commission.

3. We have given our earnest consideration to the whole matter. It can hardly be denied that there is the usual hazard of modem day living and travel, especially where the mode of travel is highly professionalised like that of flying. One must remember that an orthodox as the complainants would have us-believe that they are, would take extra caution before eating anything which even remotely gives rise to a suspicion, that it is not purely vegetarian. On slightest suspicion such a person would make doubly sure that he does not take anything which contains any non-vegetarian substance even like egg, let alone meat or chicken. One has also to remember that the colour, smell, flavour, taste and appearance of non-vegetarian food are distinctly different and a strict vegetarian would hardly make a mistake unless he wants to be duped. The particular non-vegetarian dish which the complainants are supposed to have mistakenly eaten was chicken curry. It is commonly known that in pre-packed dinner or lunch served during the flight does not have a free flowing curry or gravy. It is fairly thick. One can hardly, therefore, make a mistake in recognizing whether what he has eaten is purely vegetarian or not. In S.N. Sinha's case relied on by learned Counsel we may point out that that was a case where a metallic wire was found in the food which in the process of eating pierced the gum of the passenger and thus he suffered physical injury. He was awarded Rs. 2,000/- by the State Commission which amount was upheld in appeal. In the present case, there is no averment that the complainants suffered any physical injury by eating the food which was served to them. There was no vomiting or food poisoning etc. With regard to the religious sentiments we may point out that nothing on earth can undo what has happened. The next best thing was to offer apology which in this case was done at the earliest as well as after looking into the matter. We fail to understand how in the facts and circumstances of this case payment of a sizable amount of money is going to undo that religious hurt. In the nature of things the caterer could not have known to whom the particular packet would be served. There was no mala fide intention at any stage. Therefore, there can be no philosophical basis for burdening the Opposite Party by awarding any substantial amount as compensation.

4. We are, therefore, of the view that the complaints are frivolous ones. They are accordingly dismissed in limine. Complainant be informed.

Complaint dismissed in limine.