Madras High Court Asks Air India To Pay ₹35,000 To Passenger Who Found Hair In In-Flight Meal, Says Airline Tried To Shift Liability To Caterer
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, Single Bench of Justice P.B. Balaji directed Air India Limited to pay Rs.35,000 to a passenger who discovered a strand of hair in the meal served during a flight. The Court found the airline negligent and criticized its attempt to deflect responsibility onto its catering contractor. While setting aside the trial court’s earlier award of Rs.1,00,000 as damages, the Court ordered the airline to bear the suit costs and court fee expenses, holding that the carrier remained vicariously liable for lapses in the food service provided on board.
The case arose from a civil suit filed by a passenger against Air India Limited, alleging negligence in food service during a flight from Colombo to Chennai on June 26, 2002. The passenger claimed that a sealed meal packet served on board contained strands of hair, causing nausea and discomfort. Upon landing, he lodged a complaint with the airline’s local office, following which Air India issued a letter expressing regret and indicating that the matter was under investigation. Subsequently, the passenger sent a legal notice seeking compensation for physical unease and distress allegedly suffered due to the incident. Dissatisfied with the airline’s response, he initiated a suit claiming damages of Rs.11,00,000.
In its written statement, the airline denied liability, asserting that it had maintained due care and that the catering services had been outsourced to a five-star hotel in Chennai, making the caterer a necessary party to the proceedings. It further suggested the possibility that the contamination could have occurred after the meal packet was opened by the passenger or due to other passengers’ inadvertent contact. The airline argued that its expression of regret did not amount to an admission of negligence and contended that the absence of evidence or the contaminated food tray weakened the plaintiff’s claim.
No oral or documentary evidence was presented by either party during trial. The plaintiff relied on the pleadings and the airline’s written communications to support the allegation of deficient service, while the defendants emphasized the lack of proof and the plaintiff’s failure to appear as a witness. The case primarily concerned the airline’s responsibility under contract and tort principles for providing safe and hygienic in-flight services. The arguments revolved around negligence, vicarious liability, and the legal burden of proof in a claim for damages arising from alleged deficiency in service.
The Court stated: “I am left only with the pleadings, namely the plaint and the written statement.” The judge observed that the written statement itself revealed a lack of denial regarding the incident. Extracting from the defense, the Court noted: “The plaintiff admits to be a frequent flier and so far no incident of this kind has happened to him and if in spite of all care and attention, a hair follicle was found in the food, it cannot be a case of negligence warranting a claim.”
The Court found that Air India had taken contradictory positions. “In one breath, they claimed that there were seven airline staff on board and the plaintiff never complained to any of them. However, on their own volition, at paragraph No.10 of the written statement, the defendants admit that the plaintiff orally complained and the complaint was also radioed through the company channel.” Justice Balaji recorded that Air India’s own acknowledgment of receiving the complaint weakened its denial of the incident.
The judgment stated: “The legal maxim, res ipsa loquitur would govern the facts of the present case. The principle embodied in the said maxim fundamentally means that negligence is evident and obvious and does not require the complainant to prove anything as the res proves itself.” The Court held that the burden of proof had shifted to the defendants to show that due care was taken, which they failed to establish.
Regarding the argument of non-joinder of the caterer, Ambassador Pallava, the Court observed that the plaintiff had no contractual relationship with the caterer. “The ticket cost paid by the plaintiff includes meals to be provided by the defendants. The plaintiff has absolutely no privity of contract with the caterer.”
The Court stated that airlines were vicariously liable for the acts of their contractors, stating: “The defendants are therefore clearly vicariously liable to compensate the plaintiff for the negligence, namely the presence of hair follicles in the food packet, even though the food packet may not have been prepared by the defendants, but only through their agents.”
However, on the issue of quantum of damages, Justice Balaji found that the trial court erred. “In a suit for compensation, being a tortious liability, the plaintiff would have to necessarily adduce oral and documentary evidence to establish the claim.” The judge noted that the plaintiff failed to enter the witness box or prove any physical or monetary loss. Therefore, the Court held that “the award of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000 is clearly unsustainable.”
The judgment recorded: “The learned counsel for the respondent would also fairly concede that the plaintiff was never interested in taking any money from the defendants for compensation, but the suit was filed only to expose the negligent acts of the defendants.” Accordingly, Justice Balaji held that while the compensation was unsustainable for lack of proof, costs could still be imposed to deter negligence.
The Court declared: “I have no difficulty in setting aside the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the trial Court. At the same time, having found that the defendants have been negligent and they have mischievously attempted to pass on liability to the caterer, I am inclined to impose costs on the defendants/appellants.”
“The defendants shall pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as costs, to the plaintiff/respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” The Court closed the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition and made no order as to costs beyond this sum. The appeal was thus “partly allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. S. Satish Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Subramanian for Mr. B. Ravi
Neutral Citation:2025:MHC:2366
Case Title: General Manager, Southern India Region, Air India Ltd. & Others vs. P. Sundarapariporanam
Case Number: A.S.No.259 of 2023 & CMP.No.10138 of 2023
Bench: Justice P.B. Balaji
