Some Food For Thought

substances being found in food catered by the airlines or the railways

As the number of daily travellers increases, so does the demand for better services. If you are dissatisfied with the quality of service, can you take the service provider to a consumer court and claim damages? A decision made by the highest consumer court in a related incident reveals a certain principle which will be of interest to a large number of disgruntled travellers.

A passenger travelling from Patna to Ahmedabad by Indian Airlines was served dinner on board the aircraft. While partaking the food, the passenger suddenly experienced some pain in his mouth because of some hard substance piercing his gum. The passenger immediately inserted a finger into his mouth and pulled out a sharp piece of metallic wire from his gum; the piece of metallic wire had got into his mouth along with the rice and curry served as part of the dinner.

 

The passenger immediately brought the above facts to the notice of the air-hostess but since she made no note of it, the passenger gave a written complaint to the Captain of the flight. He, in turn, got a panchnama of the sharp piece of wire prepared by the police inspector of the police station under whose jurisdiction the Ahmedabad airport fell.

The affected passenger approached the Patna Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) claiming a total amount of Rs 1.10 lakh as compensation for pain and suffering, for mental shock as well as for the alleged failure of Indian Airlines to provide first-aid.

The State Commission awarded a compensation of Rs 2,000 to the passenger. Dissatisfied with this judgement, both Indian Airlines as well as the passenger filed an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission), New Delhi.

The National Commission has also held that the Indian Airlines has to pay a reasonable amount by way of compensation for the inconvenience and mental shock caused to a passenger on feeling the piece of metallic wire pressing against his gums while consuming his dinner.

At this point, Indian Airlines tried to wriggle out of the case arguing that it cannot be held responsible for any defect in the food supplied by independent caterers. This contention was not accepted as is clear from the following portion of the National Commissions order:

The further plea put forward by the Airline that it could not be held responsible for any defect in the food supplied by the caterers was also rejected by the State Commission by pointing out that there was absolutely no privity of contract between the passengers and the caterers and that the caterer was functioning only as an agent of the Airline and hence the Airline in its capacity as the principal must be held responsible for any deficiency in the food supplied by its agent.

It has also been mentioned in the said order that any defect in the food supplied must therefore be regarded as a deficiency in the service rendered by the Airline. However, the amount of compensation awarded was far below that demanded by the aggrieved party because of the absence of any medical evidence regarding the nature and extent of injury suffered by the passenger. The National Commissions order relating to this particular issue read as follows:

In the absence of any evidence regarding the nature and extent of the injury, if any, suffered by the complainant and there being nothing to show that he had to undergo medical treatment for any such injury, the State Commission was right in holding that the complainant was entitled only to be awarded a reasonable amount by way of compensation for the inconvenience and mental shock caused to him on feeling the piece of metallic wire pressing against his gum while consuming the rice and curry supplied as part of the dinner served during the flight.

The amount of Rs 2,000 fixed by the State Commission as compensation to be paid to the complainant appears to us to be quite reasonable and fair.

If the affected passenger had also got a medical certificate from a medical practitioner (preferably by the one authorised by the Airline), I have no doubt that he would have been awarded a higher compensation.

It is not so much the amount awarded by way of compensation that is material as the principle that emerges from the order of the highest consumer court. Hence, it is necessary to also consider in what other cases this principle would be applicable to.

In my opinion, the above principle will be applicable in the following cases:

Railways: In some of the trains, like the Rajdhani Express, the cost of the food supplied is included in the fare. Hence, the above principle fully applies to the food supplied in these trains.

In most other trains, the food is supplied on extra payment (besides the cost of the ticket) by the Railways or a Contractor approved by it. In these cases, the concerned party will also have to be made an opposite party in the complaint to be filed before the consumer court. It will also be incumbent on the traveller to obtain a cash-memo from the said supplier.

Hotels/Restaurants: Food supplied by a hotel or a restaurant will also be subject to the above principle if any injury is caused to the consumer.

Conducted tours: If in a tour conducted within the country or outside the country, the tour operator has included the cost of meals in the price of the ticket, he will be liable to pay compensation if a tourist is adversely affected on consuming the food supplied.

The complaints are filed with the district forum, the State Commission or the National Commission for compensation amounts within Rs 5 lakh, between Rs 5 lakh and Rs 20 lakh and above Rs 20 lakh respectively. But if you are dissatisfied with the judgement made by the court where you file your complaint, provision for making appeals to a higher order of courts is also provided for under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

One can appeal against the order of the district forum to the State Commission within 30 days of the date of the order; against the orders of the State Commission to the National Commission and against the orders of the National Commission to the Supreme Court within 30 days of the date of the order in both cases.

In my view, the correct interpretation of this is within 30 days of the communication of the order because several days may pass between the passing of the order and actual receipt. To be effective, the order has to be communicated. And the receiver should note the date on which the order has been communicated.

Hence, in a situation similar to to or allied to the one described above, it would be advisable for the person concerned to put in a written complaint and get the signatures of the concerned party, preserve all extraneous substances for production as evidence in the consumer court and also procure a medical certificate indicating nature of injury to ensure full justice and compensation from the consumer court.