ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Lufthansa German Airlines feeling aggrieved by the directions of the State Commission directing them to pay compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakh to the complainants/respondents within a period of two months from the date of acknowledgement of the order.
2. Facts in brief giving an occasion to filing of the complaint and this appeal are given hereinafter.
3. The above mentioned four complainants/respondents were travelling from Amsterdam to Frankfurt on 10.12.1997 by Flight No. LH-4413 of the appellant/opposite parties in the usual course of its service to the passengers. The appellants were providing afternoon meals while on board in the flight. Immediately after the complainants/respondents started taking food articles, they noticed a good number of broken glass particles embedded in the food articles. They noticed some hard and foreign material in the food while they started chewing the meal and felt that some hard and foreign material in the food. There was hue and cry and called upon the Air Hostess in charge of the flight and brought it to her notice. The Captain, the Chief Air Steward and the crew in charge of the flight all found themselves and were satisfied that the said food so served to them, was totally unfit for consumption. The Chief Steward tendered apology. The complainants submitted the written complaint with the Captain of the flight who assured that necessary action would be taken. When the complainants sought for replacement of the food trays, they were told that since a meal preference had been requested not extra meal trays were available. Consequently, the complainant had to remain without food in the flight. On reaching Frankfurt they had to purchase food and take the same.
4. On reaching Calcutta they approached the office of appellants and made a further complaint to them and demanded damage. The appellant assured of taking all necessary action. The appellant chose to offer only certain coupons for availing free Duty-free goods worth Rs. 1,250 in Indian currency. This was not acceptable to the complainant/respondents. Thereafter, appellants suggested that should be complainants go for another trip in their Airlines then they would be granted 50% discount on the fare. This was also refused and ultimately the above named four complainants filed a complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lakh for mental agony and harassment.
5. The case was contested by the appellant. The appellants denied that the broken glass particles were found in the food. The meal served on the flight between Amsterdam to Frankfurt was either vegetarian or non-vegetarian snacks and there was no separate Asian vegetarian food. They also denied that they had offered any compensation during their next journey to Europe and United States.
6. However, there is no dispute in between the parties that the complainant/respondents were on Flight No. 4413 of the appellant from Amsterdam to Frankfurt of Lufthansa German Airlines on 10.12.1997. There is also no dispute that the food was served to them.
7. The dispute is thus confined to (i) whether broken glass pieces were found in the meals and it w as not fit for human consumption and (ii) if it was so, the amount of compensation?
8. As regards the point No. (i) deficiency in rendering service there could not be any dispute about the fact that the appellant were supposed to serve appropriate meal which should not be injurious to the air travellers. According to the complainants/respondents, immediately after the complainant started taking food articles out of and from the said meal served by the on board staff of the appellant, it transpired that there were a good number of broken glass particles embedded in the said food articles. In fact, this abnormally was only noticed by the complainants when almost each one of the complainants found some hard and foreign material in the food while they were chewing the same. Being put in a highly alarming situation and having been posed with a threat to their lives, in a hue and cry, the complainants immediately called upon the Air Hostess in charge of the said flight No. 4413 of the appellant and had shown to her as also to the other members of the crew on board the said food stuff which had broken glass particles and foreign materials. The Captain, the Chief Air Steward, Mr. H. Kopfer and the crew in charge of the said flight all found out for themselves and were satisfied that the said food so served to the complainants was totally unfit for consumption. The appellants found themselves corroborated by the letter dated 1.1.1998 sent by the Manager, Sales, Calcutta and Eastern Region to Mr. Rishi Bajoria the contents of which are as under:
At the outset, I would like to sincerely apologise for the incident where you found pieces of glass in your meal tray. We have taken a very serious view of the incident and our Head Office in Germany has already been apprised of this unpleasant episode.
While not trying to marginalise the issue, may I assure you that Lufthansa exercises very strict standards of quality control and care when preparing and loading meals on our flights. It is indeed unfortunate that such an occurrence did take place at all. As part of our new product improvement strategy a corporate decision has already been made to further strengthen our already existing quality standards to avoid recurrence of such incidents in future.
Dear Mr. Bajoria, while nothing we do may lessen the extent of the discomfiture that you underwent during the flight, we would like to do something special for you the next time you fly Lufthansa. Please contact me whenever you next plan to travel West bound. Also do convey our deepest regrets to your friends too on this issue. We sincerely hope that your friends and you will not hold this isolated incident against Lufthansa and that you will give us another opportunity to serve you better.
(Emphasis supplied)
9. This above letter was replied on 12.1.1999 by Mr. Rishi Bajoria to Lufthansa German Airlines, the contents of which are as under:
You are aware that broken pieces of glass were found in our Asian Vegetarian meal while we were flying on your above flight from Amsterdam to Frankfurt. Anything might have happened had the glass been taken inadvertently, including loss of life. It is highly surprising that you claim so tall to be one of the best leading airlines and the quality control and superintendence is so poor may be due to sheer negligence and least care for what may come. Any service has to be coupled with proper look after and absolute vigilance without which results are bound to be what came to us. Yet you have in your letter under reply simply offered apologies and bare assurances without however disclosing what action you took on the life-threatening incident complaint of and the results of any such actions.
We regret very much that your assurance contained in the letter dated January 1st, 1998 to “do something special” was found only to be a nightmare. Doing “Something special” by you in lieu of threat and danger to life of a human being was assessing by your Mr. Pran Section Dasan (possibly under your corporate instructions, policy and decision) at a coupon worth DM 50 to the utilised for Duty Free Shopping. The “Something Special” being coupons worth DM 50 presented to us by you are returned herewith.
It is an admitted position that you failed miserably to perform and raider the service on board, which was and is part of your duty, remuneration far which has been duly incurred and paid by us and received by you. For the reasons of your wilful negligence and carelessness we had to suffer a great amount of mental agony while on your flight and thereafter as well.
In the facts and circumstances of the matter we are left with no alternative but to call upon you to compensate us by making payment of damages in the sum of Rs. Five lakh only each, which amount is reasonably assessed by us, within a period of 15 days from the receipt hereof. It is needless to mention that non-compliance will entail legal action on our part in which unfortunate event we shall hold you responsible for all costs and consequences arising therefrom.
10. Similarly, in the letter dated 15.3.1999 written by Mr. Pran S. Dasan, Manager Sales, Calcutta and Eastern Region to Mr. Rishi Bajoria, it is stated that:
Thank you for your letter dated January 12,1999. Before going further, toe would like you to also know that Lufthansa does not intend in any way to marginalise the issue.
While we did commit to do something special (viz., upgrade for your next flight with Lufthansa), for reasons as explained to you during our meeting, we were unable to do so. We also regret that you did not accept our offer of duty-free vouchers. If is also not that Lufthansa has not taken cognizance of your complaint. Every complaint with regard to meal is conveyed to our entering department at head office in addition to the station of origin. Tighter and better quality control measures are introduced regularly. So much so that it becomes difficult to quantify and to describe in detail to you what improvements have been made in the entire process to avoid recurrence of such complaints.
Your claim now having been made almost 13 months after the incident, it is indeed difficult for us to verify the details of the complaint. Therefore, as intimated to you over the phone, we would as a very special case like to offer you, Mr. Adarsh Bhalotia, Mr. Gaurav Agarwala and Mr. Shamit Kliemka each a 50% rebated ticket on the services of Lufthansa to any destination of your choice in Europe or the United States in Business or Economy Class, in full and final settlement of your claim.
It is our sincere wish to only ensure the safety of our passengers but also to ensure that they travel in the highest levels of comfort. We looking forward to your kind understanding and hope you will find our offer acceptable.
(Emphasis supplied)
11. If we goby the reply, there appears to be an admission of the fact that the food served had embedded glass pieces otherwise there was no question or occasion for writing about loss. It may be mentioned that no affidavit of the Captain, the Chief Air Steward straightaway was filed to deny this fact. The affidavit filed by Harald Hann, General Manager, Lufthansa German Airlines could not be relied upon as he was not present at the time when the staff expressed regrets. Similarly, the affidavit of Mr. Markus Reuther, General Manager, Finance and Personnel would not be sufficient to reduce the danger and threat to life involved in consuming glass pieces embedded in served meals to the complainants/respondents in view of the above letters issued by the appellants itself. Consequently, the deficiency in rendering air travel services stand proved on account of failure to serve proper, healthy and safe meal fit for human consumption during the flight.
12. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had not been satisfied. In this regard we would not like to make the Consumer Protection Act altogether ineffective by extending rather stretching these provisions by adopting a hyper-technical approach. Secondly, Section 13(2)(b) provides for the procedure where the matter relates to complaint relating to goods in respect of which procedure specified in Sub-section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any service prescribed in Sections 13(2)(a) and 13(2)(b). Consequently, this hyper-technical submission has to be rejected for the reasons mentioned hereinabove.
13. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, there could not be any dispute that a person who is travelling by air would certainly need meal and meal would mean standard, healthy, and safe meal, which would satisfy the basic condition that it should be fit for human consumption. Consumption of glass pieces embedded meal could have caused any injury either at the time of eating the same or subsequently by causing scratches in food pipe, abdomen and intestine and it could lead to death of either of these complainants. If by certain omission/negligence food served to the four complainants did contain glass pieces then they would naturally expect injury in the food pipe, abdomen and intestine, due scratches and bleeding, etc. on account of presence of broken glass pieces in the meal. It would have certainly caused extreme anxiety and would have kept the complainants/respondents scared on one hand, leave apart they had to remain without food till they reached the destination.
14. The compensation has to be commensurate with the scare, anxiety, mental pain and agony as well as injury, in the circumstances in which the meals were served. Each one of the four complainants paid Rs. 1,02,178 which included cost of the meal. The food could not be replaced due to non availability. The four complainants remained without food till they reached Frankfurt. Their health and life was put in jeopardy by serving glass pieces embedded meal and they had just escaped injury by skin of their teeth. Naturally, it would have caused mental agony and anxiety if any piece of glass had gone into food pipe. The respondents/complainants by paying huge sums on tickets wanted to purchase comfortable air travel coupled with other incidental services. They had neither purchased glass pieces embedded meals coupled with consequential mental agony, anxiety and scare, nor purchased compelling fasting and starvation by going without meals. In the aforesaid, compensation if not exemplary, could not be flea bite compensation. The fact that 50% discount was offered in the ticket would itself amount to be over Rs. 50,000 per ticket. The State Commission has not awarded any interest. More than around 6 years have passed since the incident has taken place. If interest is calculated at the rate of 12% on the said amount of Rs. 50,000 for six years it would be Rs. 30,000 and if we add high cost of litigation it would come to around Rs. 1,00,000 per year. We are also supposed to give din-lizard to the discretion used by the State Commission in this respect. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not think that any interference is called for in the amount of compensation awarded.
15. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any force in this appeal.
16. For the aforementioned reasons, we dismiss the appeal.
