Crew's Rude Behavior When Asked For Water In Flight, Delhi State Consumer Commission Enhances Compensation Against Emirates

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Rajan Sharma (Judicial Member) and Bimla Kumari (Female) held Emirates Airlines liable for deficiency in service for ignoring the request to provide water to the Complainant's son and subsequently behaving rudely while dismissing the request at 2 occasions. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 1.5 Lakhs (Compensation and Litigation Costs) to the Complainant.

Brief Facts:

Mr Anuj Aggarwal (“Complainant”) accompanied by his wife and three-year-old son, travelled from Dubai to Amman on flight number EK-903 operated by Emirates Airlines (“Airlines”) in the economy class. While in flight, the Complainant's son, in need of water, was ignored and treated rudely by a crew member of the airline. Despite the child's cries, the crew member, on two occasions, purportedly dismissed the request, leading the Complainant to confront her. The situation was eventually resolved when the manager on board arranged water for the Complainant's son. The Complainant made several communications to the airlines seeking compensation for the mental agony caused to his son but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi (“District Commission”).

In response, the airline, in its written statement, denied any deficiency in service and deemed the complaint as not maintainable. It contended that the Complainant's behaviour was offensive and dictatorial towards the female cabin crew member. The District Commission concluded that the initial failure to provide water promptly constituted a deficiency in service on the part of the airline. Consequently, the District Commission directed the airline to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 5000/- as litigation charges. 

The Complainant appealed the District Commission order in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”), stating that compensation awarded by the District Commission was not just and reasonable. The Complainant contended that the District Commission failed to grasp the gravity of the Complainant's claim, asserting that he and his family suffered humiliation and tremendous mental agony due to the crew member's inappropriate behaviour. The Complainant emphasized that the deficiency in service extended beyond the mere denial of water, encompassing the improper treatment meted out to the entire family. 

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission referred to the case of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh [(2004) 5 SCC 65] noted the expansive scope of the term "compensation," encompassing actual or expected loss and extending to physical, mental, or emotional suffering, insult, or injury. The Consumer Protection Act empowers the State Commission to redress any injustice, enabling it to award not only the value of goods or services but also compensation for the sufferance of the consumer. The State Commission emphasized that such compensation aims to vindicate the strength of the law, particularly when the sufferance is a result of mala fide, capricious, or oppressive acts.

The State Commission referred to the case of G.L. Sanghi & Ors Vs. Scandinavian Airlines & Ors. [III (2009) CPJ 237 (Del)], where the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to a senior advocate of the Supreme Court who faced rude behaviour from airline crew members due to the denial of a vegetarian meal.

The State Commission agreed with the District Commission's categorical observation that the airline was deficient in service but expressed dissatisfaction with the awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and a meagre sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. In light of the mental agony suffered by the Complainant and his family due to the crew member's rude behaviour in not providing basic water to the minor child, the State Commission deemed it necessary to enhance the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The litigation cost was also increased from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs 50,000/-.

Case Title: Anuj Aggarwal vs Emirates Airlines

Case No.: First Appeal No. 556/2017

Advocate for the Complainant: Mr Kunal Sharma

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Ritu Singh Mann