Madras High Court: In an appeal suit filed by Air India under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) to set aside the judgment and decree passed by Additional City Civil Court, wherein Air India was directed to pay a sum of ₹1,00,000/- as damages to a passenger who found a strand of hair in a sealed food packet served during a flight, the Single Judge Bench of P.B. Balaji, J. while reiterating the settled legal principle that in claims based on tortious liability, the burden of proof lies on the claimant, the Court held that the failure to adduce oral or documentary evidence disentitles the respondent to any compensation.
Nonetheless, the Court found that Air India was negligent in providing contaminated food and had further attempted to shift liability to its caterer, despite the fact that the airline remained vicariously liable to its passenger, with whom it had direct contractual obligations.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the Trial Court’s award of ₹1,00,000/- in damages. However, given the established negligence and the airline’s attempt to deflect responsibility, the Court imposed Rs. 35, 000 costs on Air India.
Background
The respondent, a frequent flier with Air India, travelled on Flight IC 574 from Colombo to Chennai on 26-06-2002. During the flight, he was served a sealed food packet in which he allegedly found strands of hair, causing him nausea. Unable to lodge a complaint on board due to the absence of a complaint mechanism and unresponsive flight staff, he fell ill and filed a complaint with the Deputy General Manager, Air India immediately upon landing.
Air India responded with a letter expressing regret and stating that the matter was under investigation. The respondent claiming to have suffered vomiting and stomach pain, issued a legal notice on 19-07-2002 demanding compensation. In response, Air India again expressed regret. Dissatisfied, he filed a suit seeking ₹11,00,000/- as compensation.
In their written statement, Air India denied negligence, stating that such an incident had never occurred before. They argued that catering services had been outsourced to Ambassador Pallava, a five-star hotel, and the absence of the caterer as a party amounted to non-joinder of a necessary party. They further suggested the possibility that hair might have fallen into the food after the packet was opened, possibly from a co-passenger. Air India also contended that since the respondent neither reported the issue onboard nor sought medical assistance, the airline could not be held liable. They clarified that the apology issued was purely courtesy and did not amount to an admission of guilt.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
1.Whether Air India have been negligent and deficient in service to the respondent?
The Court noted that neither party led any oral or documentary evidence during trial. As a result, the matter was decided solely based on the pleadings, namely, the plaint and the written statement.
The Court highlighted several key points from Air India’s written statement:
-
The respondent admitted to being a frequent flier and confirmed that no similar incident had occurred in the past. Air India contended that, despite due care, if a hair follicle was found in the food, it would not constitute negligence warranting compensation of ₹11,00,000/-.
-
It was further argued that the food packet was sealed, and it could not be conclusively said that the hair was present at the time of packing. The possibility that it fell into the food after opening, potentially from a co-passenger, was also suggested.
-
Respondent allegedly failed to hand over the contaminated food tray to airline staff, which, according to the defendants, hindered any further investigation.
-
While Air India did apologize for the incident, they claimed the apology was a matter of courtesy and did not amount to an admission of guilt.
-
In one part of their statement, Air India claimed the respondent made no complaint during the flight. However, elsewhere, they admitted that the respondent orally complained, which was relayed through the company’s communication channel. A senior Catering Manager reportedly attempted to meet the respondent after landing, but the respondent declined and instead lodged a complaint with the Airport Manager.
-
Air India also argued that the respondent could have availed of medical attention if he was truly unwell.
The Court criticized the inconsistency in Air India’s pleadings, noting that they had “blown hot and cold.” While initially denying that a complaint was made on board, Air India later admitted that a complaint had indeed been made and acted upon.
Upon an overall reading of the written statement, the Court found no outright denial of the incident. In fact, the statements implied admission of the presence of a hair follicle in the food served to the respondent.
Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur
The Court invoked the legal maxim res ipsa loquitur, which means “the thing speaks for itself.” It held that the facts of the case clearly demonstrated negligence on the part of Air India. Since the act itself was prima facie evidence of negligence, the burden shifted to Air India to prove that they had exercised reasonable care. In the absence of such proof, the Court held that negligence was established.
2.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the caterer, Ambassador Pallava?
The Court rejected the defence that the caterer (Ambassador Pallava Hotel) was a necessary party. It held that merely because the caterer’s name appeared on the food packet, Air India could not evade liability. The airline was responsible for the services provided on board, including the quality of food served, and could not shift the entire blame onto the caterer.
The Court held that the respondent’s contract was exclusively with Air India, the airline operators, for travel from Colombo to Chennai. The airline ticket, which included the cost of in-flight meals, was purchased from Air India and no privity of contract existed between the respondent and the caterer.
The Court clarified that the arrangement between Air India and the caterer was an internal contractual matter, and as far as the respondent was concerned, the airline alone was responsible for providing food and beverage services during the flight.
Accordingly, the Court held that Air India were vicariously liable for the negligence resulting in the presence of hair follicles in the food packet, regardless of whether the food was prepared by a third-party caterer. The airline could not escape liability by shifting blame to its agent.
The Court found no error in the Trial Court’s conclusion that the suit was maintainable, and non-joinder of the caterer did not render the suit defective. The finding of negligence on the part of Air India was upheld.
3.Whether the respondent is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the Trial Court?
The Court observed that in a suit based on tortious liability, such as a claim for compensation, the respondent bears the burden of proof and is required to adduce both oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the actual loss or injury suffered. In this case, the respondent failed to enter the witness box and, despite being granted an opportunity, chose not to lead any evidence.
In the absence of any material to demonstrate the extent of loss or hardship suffered, the Court held that the Trial court’s award of ₹1,00,000/- as compensation was unsustainable, as it lacked evidentiary basis. Accordingly, the award was set aside.
However, the Court acknowledged that the respondent had filed the suit more to highlight the negligence on the part of Air India rather than to seek monetary compensation. During the trial, the respondent filed a memo stating that oral evidence was not required due to Air India’s implied admission of negligence. Furthermore, it was fairly submitted by the respondent’s counsel that the primary intent was to expose the airline’s careless conduct and that the suit should act as a deterrent.
While reiterating the legal principle that the burden of proof lies on the respondent, and failure to lead evidence disentitles a party to damages, the Court still found that Air India had indeed been negligent. Moreover, Air India had attempted to shift responsibility to their caterer, despite being vicariously liable.
The Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the ₹1,00,000/- compensation but directed Air India to bear the costs of the suit, including:
-
Court fee and expenses: Rs.15,000/-
-
Counsel’s fee: Rs. 20,000/-
Total costs awarded: Rs.35,000/- to be paid by Air India to the respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.
[General Manager, Air India v. P.Sundarapariporanam, A.S. No. 259 of 2023, decided on 10-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellants: Mr.S.Satish Kumar
For Respondent: Mr.R.Subramanian