INDIAN AIRLINES, NEW DELHI Vs. S.N.SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two cross appeals filed against the order dated May 17, 1990 passed by the State Commission, Bihar in Complaint Case No. 9 of 1989 on its file. First Appeal No. 56 of 1990 has been filed by the Indian Airlines which was the Opposite Party before the State Commission and First Appeal No. 71 of 1990 has been preferred by Shri S.N. Sinha, who was the Complainant

(2.) THE Complainant, Shri S .N. Sinha travelled from Patna to Ahmedabad as a passenger on flight No. IC -295 of the Indian Airlines on 9th February, 1988. Since the flight took off from Patna only late in the evening after a delay of about two hours, dinner was served to the passengers by the Airline on board the aircraft. While taking the food so supplied by the Airline, Shri Sinha suddenly experienced some pain in his mouth because of some hard substance piercing the gum.

(3.) THE Opposite Party namely, the Indian Airlines Corporation filed a detailed written statement contending inter alia that providing meals or snacks to the passengers is not the main function of the Airline, that the function of the Airline is only to transport members of the public from one city to another linked together on the Airlines net work and that providing food to the passengers is only an incidental service rendered for the comfort and convenience of the passengers. It was further averred in the written statement that the food was not supplied by the Airline but by caterers appointed by it and, as such, the person responsible for any defect noticed in the food is only caterer who supplied the food. Though not specifically admitting the factum of the incident alleged by the Complainant having actually been taken place, the written statement did not contain any denial thereof in specific terms. The Airline however, disputed its liability with regard to the claim for compensation contending that there was no deficiency of service on its part and that the liability, if any, for compensation was that of the caterers. Finally, it was contended in the written statement that the claim for compensation put forward by the Complainant was highly inflated and wholly unreasonable.