PUNEET MISHERPURI Vs. AUSTRIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxxxxxxxxxx.

(2.) SINCE there was difference of opinion between Hon'ble President and the Member of this Commission, the matter was referred to me for third member opinion in accordance with Provisions of Section 14 (2A), Proviso of the C.P. Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act). At the very outset, I have heard Ms. Gunjan, Counsel for the complainant and Mr. V.P. Diwan, Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) IT has been alleged that complainant belongs to a traditional Hindu Brahmin Priest Family. His ancestors were also priests at Haridwar, a religious city for Hindus. He is a strict vegetarian. He booked a flight of OP/Austrian Airways in April, 2004 for his return journey from Copenhagen to New Delhi with a break -in -journey at Vienna. At the time of booking, a request was made for supply of pure Indian vegetarian meal without egg and with dairy products. It was further alleged that during lunch time he was provided with a lunch packet bearing a label of Hindu Meal (HNML). On opening the packet it transpired that it was not a pure -vegetarian Hindu meal. This fact was brought to the notice of the Crew member namely Mr. Wener Walil who stated that the food supplied was purely vegetarian meal and on his repeated insistence the complainant ate a portion of the food supplied which was later on found to be non -vegetarian viz. beef and the packet was returned. Since, the complainant ate a portion of non -vegetarian food, being a strict vegetarian; his religious feelings were deeply hurt for which there could be no penance as complainant hails from a traditional Brahmin Priest Family.