Madras High Court Directs Air India to Pay ₹35,000 Compensation for Serving Contaminated Meal

The Madras High Court has directed Air India Limited to compensate a passenger with ₹35,000 after he suffered vomiting sensations and stomach pain from consuming a meal that contained a strand of hair. The ruling reinforces the principle that airlines are liable for negligence in services provided to passengers, even when outsourced to third-party caterers.

---

Background of the Case

The case arose when a passenger onboard an Air India flight consumed food supplied by the airline, only to find a hair follicle in the meal. The passenger experienced immediate nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain, and subsequently lodged a complaint upon landing.

The trial court had earlier directed Air India to pay ₹1 lakh in damages for negligence. Air India appealed against this decision, arguing that the food was prepared by an external caterer — Ambassador Pallava Hotel — and that the airline itself could not be held directly responsible.

---

Court’s Observations and Findings

Justice P. B. Balaji of the Madras High Court, while partially allowing Air India’s appeal, upheld the finding of negligence but reduced the compensation to ₹35,000.

The judge noted several inconsistencies in the airline’s defense:

• Air India initially claimed that the passenger never complained during the flight.

• However, in a subsequent statement, the airline admitted that the passenger had made an oral complaint, which was immediately reported through internal company channels.

Justice Balaji observed:

“In one breath, they claimed that there were seven airline staff on board and the plaintiff never complained. However, they themselves admitted that the passenger had complained orally and the matter was reported.”

The court further pointed out that the airline’s catering manager attempted to meet the passenger after landing, indicating acknowledgment of the issue.

---

Airline’s Liability Despite Outsourced Catering

Rejecting Air India’s defense that the caterer should be held responsible, the court clarified that Air India, as the principal service provider, cannot escape liability by shifting the blame to its catering agent.

Justice Balaji held:

“Although the food may not have been prepared directly by the defendants, it was prepared by their agents. Hence, the defendants cannot wash off their responsibility by claiming that compensation must be met only by the caterer.”

The ruling reaffirmed that passengers enter into a contract with the airline, not with the catering company. Therefore, the airline bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring food safety and hygiene during service.

---

Legal and Constitutional Framework

The decision draws from multiple statutory provisions and judicial precedents that safeguard consumer rights and service accountability:

1. Consumer Protection Act, 2019

• Defines “service” to include transport, hospitality, and catering (Section 2(42)).

• Holds service providers accountable for deficiency in service and negligence.

• In this case, Air India’s failure to provide safe and hygienic food constituted a deficiency in service.

2. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Sections 73 and 74)

• Establishes that parties must perform contractual obligations with reasonable care.

• A breach resulting in harm entitles the aggrieved party to reasonable compensation.

3. Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994

• Transfers accountability for operations, including passenger welfare and catering, to the airline company.

4. Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution

• The right to life includes the right to health and safety, encompassing the obligation of airlines to ensure passengers’ well-being during travel.

---

Judicial Precedents Supporting Consumer Safety

• Indian Airlines v. Madhuri Chowdhury (1992) – The airline was held liable for serving contaminated food, affirming that the airline owes a duty of care towards passengers’ health.

• Jet Airways Ltd. v. Dr. Kiran Bedi (2012) – The consumer forum held that providing substandard services, including unhygienic meals, constitutes negligence and deficiency in service.

• State of Haryana v. Smt. Santra (2000) – The Supreme Court reiterated that negligence causing harm entitles the victim to compensation even if the act was unintentional.

---

Court’s Final Directions

The Madras High Court concluded that Air India was clearly negligent in ensuring the quality of meals served on its flights and liable to pay ₹35,000 in compensation.

The judgment serves as a reminder that outsourced operations do not absolve service providers of accountability. Whether it is food safety, passenger comfort, or public health, the airline’s duty of care remains non-transferable.

---

Broader Implications of the Ruling

This judgment sets a critical precedent for consumer safety in aviation. It reinforces that:

• Airlines are strictly liable for the services offered onboard, regardless of third-party involvement.

• Passengers have a right to expect hygienic and safe meals under the Consumer Protection Act.

• Regulatory bodies and aviation companies must enhance monitoring of catering practices to uphold food safety standards.

---

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s decision is not merely about monetary compensation — it’s a warning to the aviation industry. Airlines cannot hide behind contractors or technicalities when passengers’ health and dignity are compromised.

The judgment strengthens consumer confidence and highlights that accountability must extend beyond the ticket price — to the very quality and safety of every service offered.

---