Madras High Court Asks Air India To Pay ₹35K To Man Who Found Hair In Food, Says Airline Attempted To Pass Liability To Caterer

The Madras High Court has directed Air India Limited to pay a compensation of Rs. 35,000 to a man, who had found a hair in the food packet served to him on flights. Justice PB Balaji noted that the airlines were negligent and had mischievously attempted to shift the liability to the caterer. Though the court interfered with the order of trial court imposing a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000, the court directed the airline to pay the cost of the suit and the court fee expenses. “Having found that the defendants have been negligent and they have mischievously attempted to pass on liability to the caterer engaged by them, I am inclined to impose costs on the defendants/appellants. While setting aside the decree for compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-, I am inclined to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit, namely the Court fee and expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and the counsel's fee of Rs.20,000/-, in all, the defendants shall pay a sum of Rs.35,000/-, as costs, to the plaintiff/respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,” the court said. The court was hearing an appeal filed by the airlines seeking to set aside the decree and judgment made by the Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The passenger had alleged that while he was travelling from Colombo to Chennai, a sealed food packet was served to him. Upon opening the food packet, the passenger noticed a hair strand which made him nauseous. It was submitted that since there was no complaint box or papers available on the flight, he could not make any complaint, and the staff also did not hear him. The passenger had submitted that upon landing, he immediately lodged a complaint. He further submitted that he suffered vomiting and stomach pain and had therefore claimed compensation of Rs. 11,00,000. The airlines submitted that they had given the catering contract to Ambassador Pallava, a Five-Star Hotel in Chennai, which was not made a party to the suit. It was thus submitted that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of the caterer. The company also submitted that the food packet was sealed, and there was a possibility that the hair follicles of a co-passenger would have fallen on the packet. The airlines also submitted that the passenger had not handed over the food tray to the staff and did not request any assistance or necessary medical attention. Thus, the airlines claimed the apology issued by them could not be seen as an admission of guilt and the passenger could not blame the company. The company also argued that the passenger had not given any oral evidence. It was submitted that in a suit for compensation, it was on the plaintiff to establish the liability and the quantum of damages. The company thus argued that the trial court should not have awarded the compensation, when the passenger had not even adduced any oral document. To this, the passenger submitted that since the airlines had not denied the incident, there was no necessity for him to lead any evidence with regard to the airline's negligence. With respect to non-joinder, the passenger argued that he had no privity of contract with the caterer and he had paid the airline price to the company. Thus, he pointed ought that as far as he was concerned, the airlines was obligated to give him food, and in case of negligence, only the airline company would be made liable. The court agreed and held that the airlines were trying to blow hot and cold. The court noted that while, on the one hand, the company claimed that the passenger had not made any complaints on board, on the other hand, the company had also said that the oral complaint of the passenger was radioed to the senior catering manager who also talked to the passenger after arrival. The court remarked that the company had not denied the incident and had even admitted that the allegation that there was a hair follicle on the food packet provided to the passenger. The court relied on the principle of res ipsa loquitur and held that when the negligence was evident and obvious, the burden would be on the respondent to prove that proper care had been taken in performance of its duty to repel the charge of negligence. The court also held that the airlines could not wash off their hands, claiming that they were not involved in the preparation of food. “The defendants are therefore clearly vicariously liable to compensate the plaintiff for the negligence, namely the presence of hair follicles in the food packet, even though the food packet may not have been prepared by the defendants, but only through their agents, namely Ambassador Pallava. Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the trial Court in finding the defendants' negligence and also the suit being not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of the caterer,” the court said. However, with respect to the...

Madras High Court Asks Air India To Pay ₹35K To Man Who Found Hair In Food, Says Airline Attempted To Pass Liability To Caterer

Upasana Sajeev

Tags