Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rules airline must pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment instead of full ticket refund after denying food to infant and family on 15-hour Delhi-Melbourne flight.
In a significant consumer protection judgment dated October 7, 2026, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh partially upheld a complaint against Singapore Airlines Limited for deficiency in air travel service. The case involved Jaspreet Singh, who purchased tickets for his wife, 11-month-old daughter, and mother-in-law for a long-haul international journey from Delhi to Melbourne on March 4, 2020.
The complainant alleged that during the approximately 15 to 16-hour flight, the airline failed to provide proper meals to the passengers, including milk for the infant child. Despite repeated requests onboard, the family was denied adequate food, with only a single meal served to the complainant's mother-in-law, which was shared among the passengers. The airline's staff reportedly stated that food was only provided to passengers who had confirmed their meal preferences in advance, and since no special or vegetarian meal was requested at the time of booking, the complainant's family was not given proper meals.
The complainant promptly raised the issue with the airline through email correspondence on March 9, 2020. The airline responded by stating that no special meal request had been made and advised him to contact the travel agent. This response was deemed unsatisfactory by the Commission, especially given the long duration of the flight and the presence of a minor child requiring special care.
The District Consumer Commission initially ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering Singapore Airlines to refund the full ticket fare of Rs. 1,25,000 with 7% interest, along with Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 11,000 for litigation expenses. Dissatisfied with the order, Singapore Airlines appealed the decision.
Upon review, the Punjab State Commission recognized that the complainant's family had indeed undertaken the journey and availed the principal transportation service, and that the deficiency pertained only to ancillary in-flight services like meal provision. The Commission held that while the airline has a duty to provide reasonable care and basic meal services, especially on long international flights and for infant passengers, the absence of a special meal request does not absolve the airline from this obligation.
However, the Commission found the District Commission's order to refund the entire fare disproportionate to the deficiency established. Instead, it modified the relief to a reasonable lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant for mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses. The airline was directed to comply with this modified order within 45 days.
This judgment underscores the responsibilities of airlines under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to exercise reasonable care in providing contracted services, including ancillary provisions like meals, irrespective of special meal requests. It also highlights the courts' balanced approach in awarding compensation that reflects the nature and extent of service deficiency without being excessive.
Bottom Line:
Consumer Protection - Air travel service - Non-provision of proper food during long international flight to passengers including 11-month-old child - Mere absence of prior request for special/vegetarian meal does not absolve airline of basic duty to provide ordinary meal service and reasonable care - Deficiency in service established - However, refund of entire ticket fare not justified when principal transportation service was availed - Compensation reduced and modified to lump sum amount.
Statutory provision(s):
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Singapore Airlines Limited v. Jaspreet Singh, (PSCDRC)(Chandigarh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995149
