The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, has directed Singapore Airlines Limited to pay ₹50,000 in compensation to a passenger for failing to provide adequate food and necessary infant care during a 15-hour international flight. The ruling modifies a previous order from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar, which had initially mandated a full refund of the airfare along with additional compensation. The State Commission concluded that while the airline failed in its duty to provide reasonable care, a full refund was disproportionate as the passengers had successfully reached their destination.

The dispute originated from a flight on March 4, 2020, involving a journey from the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi to Melbourne. The complainant, Jaspreet Singh, had booked tickets for his wife, his 11-month-old daughter, and his mother-in-law. Upon the conclusion of the long-haul flight, the complainant alleged that the cabin crew failed to provide any food to his family members despite the significant duration of the journey. Furthermore, he claimed that staff members denied requests for milk for his infant daughter, citing the absence of a pre-booked meal preference.

Following an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the grievance through the airline’s customer service channels, where the carrier maintained that no special meal requests had been logged at the time of booking, the complainant initiated legal action. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission initially allowed the complaint in January 2023, directing the airline to refund the ticket costs of approximately ₹1,25,000 with seven percent interest, alongside compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses. The airline subsequently appealed this decision to the State Commission, arguing that its contractual obligations were limited by the lack of pre-ordered food requests.

Evaluating the Scope of Duty of Care

During the appellate proceedings, the State Commission closely scrutinized the airline's defense that the absence of a "special" or "vegetarian" meal request absolved the crew of their responsibility. The Bench, comprising Presiding Judicial Member Mr. H.P.S. Mahal and Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, rejected the assertion that international carriers could operate without providing ordinary meal services to passengers on long-duration flights. The Commission emphasized that basic passenger welfare should not be contingent upon the proactive selection of specific dietary categories during the booking process.

The Commission’s findings highlighted that the standard of service expected from an international airline includes a baseline duty to ensure that all passengers, especially vulnerable individuals such as infants, have access to sustenance during lengthy voyages. The Court observed that the airline’s failure to address the immediate needs of an 11-month-old child on a 15-hour flight represented a significant lapse in the promised standard of care.

Addressing the nature of the deficiency, the Commission noted in its order: “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.”

Assessing Proportionality of Relief

The State Commission sought to strike a balance between holding the carrier accountable and ensuring that the financial penalty remained commensurate with the specific nature of the service failure. It observed that because the passengers had successfully completed their transit to Melbourne, the fundamental contract for air transportation had been executed, even if the ancillary in-flight services were substandard. Consequently, ordering the total reimbursement of the ticket fare was deemed excessive, as it would effectively treat the entire flight as a failed service rather than a service rendered with deficiency.

The Bench characterized the matter as follows: “The deficiency established against the appellant 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.”

By refining the order, the Commission focused on the mental agony and physical hardship endured by the passengers. It determined that the inconvenience caused by the lack of food, particularly the emotional distress of a parent unable to secure basic nourishment for an infant, justified a substantial compensatory award. The modified order replaced the initial ticket-refund requirement with a consolidated sum of ₹50,000, intended to cover both the harassment experienced by the family and the costs associated with the legal proceedings.

Implementation and Compliance

The State Commission has mandated that the airline must ensure full compliance with the modified compensation order within 45 days from the receipt of the certified order. The decision also clarified the status of funds previously deposited by the airline during the filing of the appeal. Specifically, the registry has been instructed to transfer the deposited sum of ₹1,03,040, along with any accrued interest, to the District Commission.

Parties are now permitted to approach the District Commission to facilitate the release of these funds in accordance with the law, following the expiration of the limitation period. This final determination effectively concludes the appellate litigation, reinforcing the principle that international airlines are bound by an inherent duty of care that extends beyond formal booking specifications, especially when the well-being of minor passengers is concerned during extended international transit. The judgment serves as a reminder to aviation service providers that the absence of specific passenger requests does not mitigate their responsibility to maintain basic human-centric standards of service.