AMIT JAY KUMAR JAIN vs SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES

The petitioner-complainant being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission dated 14-07-2015 in First Appeal No.A/15/136 rejecting the plea of the petitioner to enhance the compensation has preferred this revision petition.

Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner-complainant is a Jain by religion and he is strictly vegetarian. Case of the complainant is that on 06-05-2011 he was travelling in the opposite party-airlines from Zurich to Mumbai.

While purchasing the ticket he informed the airlines that he was a vegetarian and requested for a Jain meal. However, due to mistake he was served with a non-vegetarian food. The case of the petitioner in the complaint is that after eating a morsel of the food he was alerted by a fellow passenger that the meal served to him was non-vegetarian. When the complainant protested, the flight attendant Ms. Carol T. and Ms. Durga K. instead of being apologetic misbehaved with him. Claiming this to be deficiency in service petitioner raised a consumer dispute in District Forum at Mumbai.

The opposite party-respondent on being served with the notice filed a reply admitting that the petitioner had travelled in the opposite party-airlines on 06-05-2011 from Zurich to Mumbai and he had opted for a special vegetarian Jain meal. It was pleaded that due to human error on the part of the flight attendant non-vegetarian meal was served to the complainant but the complainant on being alerted by the other passenger protested and the meal was replaced by a vegetarian meal. As a gesture of goodwill opposite party-airlines offered that in future any one economy class ticket booked by the complainant from India to Europe or from Europe to India would be upgraded to business class and an apology was also tendered in writing on 20 May, 2011. th

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence came to the conclusion that by serving non-vegetarian meal to a Jain traveller the opposite party-respondent committed deficiency in service resulting in hurting religious sentiments of the complainant. The District Forum, therefore, allowed the complaint and awarded to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- besides litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded.

The complainant not being satisfied with the amount of compensation preferred an appeal in the State Commission, Maharashtra and the State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the appeal with the following observation: "This is an appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum to the appellant/original complainant for serving him non-vegetarian meals in place of Jain food which was ordered. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.10,000/-. There is no doubt that the religious sentiments were hurt and which cannot be compensated in terms of money. All the same, the compensation awarded is notional and so adequate and no case for enhancement of compensation is made out. There is no question of any deferred compensation being awarded by District Forum. Therefore, appeal is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly."

This has led to the filing of the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Narender Singh Yadav has contended that the impugned order is not sustainable because the compensation awarded is too meager for hurting the religious sentiments of a Jain passenger.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. It is contended that the wrong meal was served because of inadvertence on the part of the newly appointed flight attendant. When the respondent came to know about the aforesaid lapse, it immediately tendered written apology to the complainant and also offered compensation of upgrade from economy class to business class in any future flight which has not been availed of.

Even today, the opposite party is ready to honor the commitment made vide email dated 02-06-2011 to the effect that in any one future flight of the complainant from India to Europe or Europe to India they would upgrade his economy class ticket to a business class ticket.

We have considered the rival contentions. On going through the complaint we find that as per allegation in para 5, the complainant did take a morsel of non-vegetarian food but as per the allegation in para 6, the complainant was alerted before he could eat the non-vegetarian food served to him. In view of above contradictory allegation it cannot be said with certainty that the complainant consumed a morsel of non-vegetarian food. Thus, under the circumstances the compensation awarded to the complainant seem to be reasonable and there is no cause for interfering with the order in exercise of revisional powers.

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the opposite party shall bound by its commitment to upgrade economy class to business class in one flight booked by the complainant from India to Europe or Europe to India with a rider that the complainant must undertake that flight within one year from today.