Chandigarh, October 22, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Singapore Airlines to pay Rs 50,000 in compensation to a passenger whose family members allegedly were not provided proper food during a 15–16-hour flight from Delhi to Melbourne, including milk for his 11-month-old daughter.
An additional bench comprising Judicial Member H.P.S. Mahal and Member Kiran Sibal partly allowed an appeal filed by the airline against a January 2023 order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar.
The district commission had directed Singapore Airlines and travel agency Bipasha Aviation to refund Rs 1.25 lakh towards air tickets, along with interest, and pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 11,000 towards litigation expenses.
The complaint was filed by Jaspreet Singh, who had purchased three tickets through the travel agency for his wife, minor daughter and mother-in-law to travel from Delhi to Melbourne on March 4, 2020.
According to the complaint, the passengers were not provided proper food during the long-haul journey. Singh alleged that when his family members asked the airline staff about meals, they were told that their food bookings had not been confirmed and that meals would first be served to passengers whose bookings were confirmed.
He further alleged that his wife and mother-in-law eventually had to share a single meal, while his 11-month-old daughter was not provided even milk.
Singh lodged a complaint with the airline by email on March 9, 2020. The airline initially assured him that the matter would be investigated but later stated that no request for vegetarian or special meals had been made during the booking process.
Challenging the district commission’s order, Singapore Airlines argued that the complainant had not requested specific meals in advance and that food had been served in accordance with the menu. It also maintained that there was no deficiency in service warranting a refund and contended that the complainant had not directly availed its services for the grievance raised.
Rejecting the airline’s contention, the state commission observed that the carrier remained responsible for providing the contracted air travel service with reasonable care, regardless of whether the tickets had been purchased directly or through a travel agent.
The commission noted that the complaint was not merely about the non-provision of a particular type of meal, but concerned the alleged failure to provide proper food during a lengthy flight, including milk for an infant.
“It is pertinent to mention here that the fact that a passenger may not have opted for a special meal does not mean that the airline is absolved of its basic duty to provide the ordinary meal service forming part of the air journey, particularly when the journey was of 15–16 hours,” the commission said.
It further observed that the presence of an 11-month-old child on such a long journey called for reasonable care and consideration from the airline.
The commission also noted that the airline had failed to place sufficient material on record to establish that the allegations were factually incorrect or that the passengers had been provided the requisite food and reasonable facilities.
“In these circumstances, the explanation furnished by appellant/OP No.1 is not convincing,” the commission said, upholding the finding of deficiency in service.
However, the state commission held that a full refund of the ticket fare with interest would be disproportionate because the passengers had completed the journey and received the principal service for which they had paid. It said the deficiency concerned the manner in which in-flight services were provided rather than a complete failure to deliver air transportation.
“The inconvenience and hardship caused during a journey of approximately 15–16 hours, particularly in the case of a passenger travelling with an 11-month-old child, cannot be brushed aside,” the commission observed.
Partly allowing the airline’s appeal, the commission set aside the relief granted by the district commission and directed Singapore Airlines to pay Rs 50,000 as a composite amount towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
The airline has been directed to comply with the order within 45 days of receiving its certified copy.
The commission also ordered that the Rs 1,03,040 deposited by the airline while filing the appeal, along with any accrued interest, be remitted to the District Consumer Commission, Ropar, which may pass an appropriate order regarding its release in accordance with law.
FOLLOW NOW
