{"id":161888,"date":"2026-10-24T15:09:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-24T09:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aviationa2z.com\/?p=161888"},"modified":"2026-10-23T20:48:39","modified_gmt":"2026-10-23T15:18:39","slug":"singapore-airlines-ordered-to-pay-50000-after-familys-in-flight-food-complaint","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aviationa2z.com\/index.php\/2026\/10\/24\/singapore-airlines-ordered-to-pay-50000-after-familys-in-flight-food-complaint\/","title":{"rendered":"Singapore Airlines Ordered to Pay \u20b950,000 After Family\u2019s In-Flight Food Complaint"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

SINGAPORE-<\/strong> Singapore Airlines (SQ)<\/a> has been ordered to pay \u20b950,000 in compensation after the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found deficiencies in its in-flight meal service on a long-haul journey from Delhi (DEL)<\/a> to Melbourne (MEL)<\/a>. The October 7, 2026, ruling followed a complaint that a passenger\u2019s wife, mother-in-law and 11-month-old daughter were not provided adequate food during a flight lasting approximately 15 to 16 hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The commission held that the absence of a request for special meals did not remove the airline\u2019s responsibility to provide ordinary meals as part of the air travel service. However, it reduced the relief awarded by a district consumer commission, ruling that a full refund of the airfare was disproportionate because the passengers had completed their journey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Singapore
Photo: Cl\u00e9ment Alloing<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Singapore Airlines Consumer Court Ruling Orders Refund<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The case arose from a complaint filed by Jaspreet Singh, who booked tickets through travel agency Bipasha Aviation for his wife, daughter and mother-in-law to travel from Delhi<\/a> to Melbourne on March 4, 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Singh alleged that the family struggled to obtain food during the journey and that his infant daughter was not provided milk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the complaint, airline staff initially told the passengers that their meals had not been confirmed and that those with confirmed meal bookings would be served first. Singh further alleged that his wife and mother-in-law eventually had to share a single meal, while the infant received no milk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Singh emailed Singapore Airlines on March 9, 2020, to report the incident. The airline initially said it would investigate the complaint but later responded that no vegetarian or special meal requests had been made during the booking process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ropar ruled in January 2023 that the airline and the travel agency should refund \u20b91.25 lakh in ticket costs with 7% annual interest, pay \u20b925,000 in compensation and cover \u20b911,000 in litigation expenses. Singapore Airlines challenged the order before the state commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Singapore
Representative Photo: Singapore Airlines<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Singapore Airline Meal Service<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Singapore Airlines argued that the passengers had not requested specific meals in advance and maintained that it had provided food from its regular menu. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It also questioned its liability because the tickets had been purchased through a travel agent rather than directly from the airline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The state commission rejected the argument that the absence of a special meal request excused the airline from providing standard meals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It noted that Singapore Airlines had operated the flight and remained responsible for delivering the contracted air travel service with reasonable care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The commission also found that the airline had not produced sufficient evidence to establish that the passengers received adequate food or to disprove the allegations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It stressed that the complaint concerned the alleged failure to provide ordinary meals during a lengthy international flight, rather than simply the absence of a preferred or specialised menu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The presence of an 11-month-old child was an important consideration in assessing the hardship reported by the family. The commission held that the inconvenience associated with inadequate meal service on a journey of approximately 15 to 16 hours could not be dismissed, Bar and Bench<\/a> reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Singapore
Photo: Singapore Airlines<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Compensation was Finally Reduced<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

While upholding the finding of deficiency in service, the commission concluded that refunding the entire ticket fare with interest would be excessive because the passengers had completed the journey and received the principal service they had paid for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The shortcoming concerned the delivery of in-flight services rather than a complete failure to provide air transportation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The commission therefore partly allowed Singapore Airlines\u2019 appeal and replaced the earlier relief with a consolidated payment of \u20b950,000 for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. It directed the airline to comply within 45 days of receiving the certified copy of the order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling highlights the distinction between a passenger\u2019s request for a special meal and an airline\u2019s basic responsibility to provide ordinary in-flight catering. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For airlines operating long-haul international services, the decision also underscores the importance of addressing passenger complaints with adequate evidence and appropriate follow-up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stay tuned with us. Further, follow us on social media for the latest updates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Join us on\u00a0Telegram Group\u00a0<\/a>for the Latest Aviation Updates. Subsequently, follow us on\u00a0Google News<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Singapore Airlines Introduces New 4K In-Flight Entertainment for Boeing 777X<\/a><\/blockquote>