According to PTI on Friday, the Madras High Court ordered Air India to reimburse a traveler who experienced health issues after consuming airline-provided meals that contained hair. The passenger will receive ₹35,000. After eating the meal, the traveler felt as though they were throwing up and had stomach pains.
The ruling was issued by Justice P B Balaji, who also largely upheld Air India Limited’s appeal against a trial court order that required company to pay ₹one lakh in compensation. The judge reportedly observed that even in their written testimony, Air India executives have been erratic, alternating between being hot and cool, according to PTI.
They asserted in a single sentence that the plaintiff, a passenger, never voiced any complaints to any of the seven airline employees on board. On their own initiative, however, the judge noted in paragraph No. 10 of the written statement that the passenger had complained verbally, which was also promptly broadcast on the Company channel.
He also mentioned that after the flight landed, a senior catering manager also tried to see the plaintiff, but the passenger declined and went straight to the airport manager’s office to file the complaint. Conversely, as previously said, the defendants acknowledge the claim that the hair follicle was discovered in the passenger’s meal packet.
Given the foregoing, I do not believe that the plaintiff must be deemed unsuitable for failing to impleading the caterer, Ambassador Pallava, simply because the name of the caterer is on the food packet and the defendants were not involved in the food’s preparation. The defendants cannot simply claim that the caterer should be compensated and not the defendants, the judge continued, according to PTI.
According to the judgement, Air India was obviously responsible for paying the passenger’s damages for their carelessness, particularly the hair follicles in the meal packet. The judge pointed out that the defendants’ agents, specifically Ambassador Pallava, prepared the food even if it might not have been made by them directly.
“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 judge stated in his ruling.
