No special meal was requested, but an infant was on board and the flight ran 15 hours: the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Singapore Airlines To Pay Rs 50,000 for deficiency in service, holding that an airline cannot escape its duty to serve ordinary meals on such a flight merely because no special meal was requested.
Chandigarh: Reducing the relief from a full refund of the Rs 1.25 lakh ticket price with interest to a composite Rs 50,000, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by an order dated October 7, 2026, has partly allowed an appeal by Singapore Airlines Limited. The Commission upheld the finding that the airline was deficient in service on a 15-hour Delhi to Melbourne flight in March 2020 [Singapore Airlines Limited v. Jaspreet Singh and Another].
First Appeal No. 256 of 2023, reserved on September 18, 2026, was decided by an Additional Bench of Presiding Judicial Member H.P.S. Mahal and Member Kiran Sibal. The judgment was authored by Kiran Sibal.
Rs 50,000 within 45 days
Singapore Airlines must pay Rs 50,000 to the complainant as composite compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, within 45 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Rs 1,03,040 deposited by the airline while filing the appeal, with any accrued interest, is to be remitted to the District Commission, which may release it after the limitation period in accordance with law.
The duty to feed does not depend on a special order
The Commission first turned down the argument that the complainant had no cause of action, since the airline operated the flight and the family actually travelled on it. On the central defence, it found the grievance was not limited to a particular type of meal, and that the airline’s own reply had said a passenger can choose a meal on board. The airline, it added, had not placed enough material on record to show that the food and other reasonable facilities were in fact provided.
“the fact that a passenger may not have opted for a special meal does not mean that the airline is absolved of its basic duty to provide the ordinary meal service forming part of the air journey, particularly when the journey was of 15–16 hours.”
An 11-month-old child travelling on such a long journey, the Commission said, called for reasonable care and consideration from the airline. It held that the finding of deficiency in service did not call for interference.
A full refund would be disproportionate
The District Commission’s award, the Commission held, was on the higher side. The passengers had completed the journey and so had received the principal service for which the fare was paid.
“The deficiency established against the appellant relates to the manner in which the ancillary/in-flight services were rendered and not to complete failure to provide the contracted air transportation service.”
Refunding the entire fare would therefore be disproportionate, it said. But the hardship of a journey of about 15 to 16 hours, particularly with an infant, and the complainant’s unresolved grievance after the journey, could not be brushed aside.
The family’s flight and the complaint
Jaspreet Singh of Rupnagar bought three tickets, through a travel agent, for his wife, his 11-month-old daughter and his mother-in-law to travel from Delhi to Melbourne on March 4, 2020. He alleged that the airline’s staff did not provide food during the 15 to 16 hour journey, and that not even milk was given to the infant.
He emailed a complaint on March 9, 2020. The airline replied that the matter would be investigated, and then said no request for a vegetarian or specific meal had been made and advised him to approach his travel agent.
From the District Commission to the appeal
On January 3, 2023, the District Commission, Ropar, allowed his complaint. It directed the airline and the travel agent to refund Rs 1,25,000 with 7 per cent interest, and to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 11,000 as litigation costs.
In its appeal, the airline argued that there was no cause of action against it, that the complainant never requested a special meal, and that food was provided from the regular menu. The complainant and the travel agent did not appear in the appeal and were proceeded against ex parte.
Two questions airlines often run together
The order separates whether a passenger ordered a special meal from whether the airline discharged its basic duty to feed passengers on a long flight. A missing special-meal request is not a complete defence to a complaint of no food at all.
It also shows proportionality in consumer relief. Where the journey itself was completed and only ancillary service fell short, the Commission preferred a fixed compensation to a full fare refund with interest.
Case Title: Singapore Airlines Limited v. Jaspreet Singh and Another [First Appeal No. 256 of 2023]
Bench: Presiding Judicial Member H.P.S. Mahal and Member Kiran Sibal, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (Additional Bench, Chandigarh)
Date of Order: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Advocate I.S. Kakkar for Singapore Airlines; the complainant and the travel agent were not represented