Hair in food: HC imposes Rs 35,000 on Air India for negligence
Chennai (PTI): The Madras High Court has directed private carrier Air India to pay Rs 35,000 to a passenger, who suffered health complications after eating the food provided by the airliner that contained hair.
He suffered vomiting sensation and stomach pain after eating the food.
Justice P B Balaji gave the directive recently while partly allowing the appeal filed by Air India Limited, which challenged an order of a trial court that directed it to pay a compensation of Rs one lakh.
n his order, the judge said it was seen that the Air India officials have blown hot and cold even in their written statement.
In one breath, they claimed that there were seven airline staff on board and the plaintiff (passenger) never complained to any of them. However, on their own volition, at paragraph No.10 of the written statement, it admitted that the passenger orally complained, which was also radioed through the Company channel immediately. A senior Catering Manager also attempted to meet the plaintiff after the flight landed, but the passenger refused to meet him and instead directly went to the Airport Manager's Office to give the complaint, the judge added.
On an overall reading of the written statement, "I cannot gather any denial of the incident anywhere."
"On the contrary, as discussed aforesaid, the defendants, in fact, admit to the allegation that the hair follicle was found in the food packet provided to the passenger. In view of the above, I do not find that the plaintiff has to be non suited on the ground of non-impleading the caterer, Ambassador Pallava, merely because the food packet contains the name of the caterer and that the defendants have no role to play in the preparation of the food, the defendants cannot wash off their heads and contend that compensation, if any, has to be met only by the caterer and not by the defendants", the judge added.
Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of the caterer, the passenger has a contract with Air India for travel from Colombo to Chennai. Admittedly, the ticket cost paid by him was only to Air India. The ticket cost includes meals to be provided on board the aircraft.
The passenger has absolutely no privity of contract with the caterer, and the food and other beverage services that were provided by Air India to the passengers on board was an independent contract between the carrier and the caterer. As far as the passenger was concerned, his contract was only with Air India and the contract, namely the ticket costs includes the food being provided to the passenger on board the aircraft, the judge added.
The judge said Air India was therefore clearly vicariously liable to compensate the passenger for the negligence, namely the presence of hair follicles in the food packet, even though the food packet may not have been prepared by the defendants, but only through their agents, namely Ambassador Pallava.
"Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the trial Court in finding the defendants' negligence and also the suit being not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of the caterer", the judge added.
The judge said for want of proving the loss or injuries suffered by the passenger, he cannot become entitled to any compensation. The Trial Court, on its own motion, having found Air India to be negligent, as a sequel, has proceeded to award a minimum compensation of Rs one lakh. However, this was clearly unsustainable in the light of the admitted position that there was absolutely no iota of evidence on the side of the passenger to establish the loss or injury suffered on account of the negligence caused by Air India.
"Therefore, I am constrained to set aside the award of compensation at Rs one lakh", the judge added.
The judge said at the same time, having found that Air India has been negligent and mischievously attempted to pass on liability to the caterer engaged by them, the judge said "I am inclined to impose costs on the defendants/appellants."
"While setting aside the decree for compensation at the rate of Rs 1,00,000, I am inclined to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit, namely the Court fee and expenses to the tune of Rs 15,000 and the counsel's fee of Rs 20,000. In all, the defendants shall pay a sum of Rs 35,000 as costs, to the plaintiff/respondent, within a period of four weeks", the judge added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
