Hyderabad court orders Singapore Airlines to compensate Telangana DGP Rs. 2 Lakhs

HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III in Hyderabad has ordered Singapore Airlines to pay Rs. 2 lakhs compensation to Telangana DGP Ravi Gupta for dysfunctional recliner seats on a flight.

Telangana DGP Ravi Gupta and his wife, Anjali Gupta, booked online air tickets on May 10, 2023, in Business (Z) category for Singapore Airlines from Hyderabad to Singapore and then to Perth, Australia.

As per the schedule, the couple boarded the flight on May 23, 2023, to depart at 11 p.m. from Hyderabad. The allotted seats were supposed to automatically recline through electronic controls, to be operated by the passengers themselves without any intervention or help from air hostesses/crew members during the flight. However, contrary to their expectations, the allotted seats were found to be non-functioning due to the failure of electronic controls throughout the journey from Hyderabad to Singapore. Anjali Gupta (54), who was suffering from severe backache, was forced to remain upright on the seat rather than reclining, compounding her physical pain and discomfort in the middle of the night.

Telangana Top Cop Sues Singapore Airlines Over Dysfunctional Recliner Seats, Receives ₹2 Lakhs in Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III in Hyderabad ordered Singapore Airlines to pay ₹2 lakhs to DGP Ravi Gupta as compensation.

Telangana DGP Ravi… pic.twitter.com/fBF88yyLyL

— Sudhakar Udumula (@sudhakarudumula) April 25, 2024

Similarly, even the complainant’s husband, Ravi Gupta (57), a senior IPS officer, needed anticipated comfort but had to stay awake and sit upright during the entire journey period, though the seats were supposed to recline fully as expected. Due to these failures of electronic controls and the malfunction of the reclining mechanism of the allotted seats, the complainants were subjected to serious inconvenience, sitting straight as if traveling in Economy Class except for some extra legroom, and suffered harassment whenever they had to request basic requirements from the air hostess, such as water or a cup of tea, etc., as the calling buttons were also not functioning, causing embarrassment to fellow passengers in the process.

The crew admitted that the said seats were defective and not functioning through the electronic control panel, which should have been verified, checked, and certified by qualified engineers/support staff before take-off on the long-haul flight from Hyderabad to Singapore. However, they neglected to do so, causing immeasurable and irreparable inconvenience to the complainants during their entire period of flying hours in the midnight/wee hours.

Aggrieved by the poor service of Singapore Airlines, the couple jointly lodged a complaint and submitted a feedback report on May 24, 2023, at 5:23 a.m., upon arrival at Singapore Airport through email. Several emails were exchanged between May 26, 2023, to June 13, 2023, between the couple and the authorized Head PPS & Customer Relations of Singapore Airlines.

On June 13, 2023, Singapore Airlines offered through a reply email that ‘we would like to reiterate that the defect with the electronic control for seat recline surfaced on arrival of the aircraft into Hyderabad and our best efforts to restore the electronic control failed’. However, both the seats were manually reclineable, and we note you had declined our crew’s offer to assist with the manual recline.

In response to their complaint, Singapore Airlines offered 10,000 KrisFlyer miles per person. However, the couple denied the offer and issued a legal notice to Singapore Airlines on June 16, 2023, demanding payment of Rs. 97,500 towards the differential amount in the economy and business (Z) class fares, and compensation for the deficiency of service and the mental agony suffered.

On July 5, 2023, Singapore Airlines replied to the legal notice with a sham defense and bald denials of facts on record. In response, the couple sent a rejoinder notice on July 11, 2023. Singapore Airlines sent a reply on August 12, 2023, denying even flying on Singapore Airlines, and asserting that the seats were functioning during the flight from Hyderabad to Singapore.

In these circumstances, the complainants have no other recourse but to approach this commission. Hence, this complaint is filed for the reliefs.

Singapore Airlines filed their written version, denying all allegations against them and contending that Singapore Airlines Limited is incorporated in Singapore and registered as a foreign company in India. They admitted that the couple purchased two business class (Z) category tickets from Hyderabad to Singapore. They asserted that, as part of the complainants’ travel on Flight SQ523, they provided them with relevant business class amenities, including priority check-in and lounge services. They were given the option to select seats from available business class category seats at the time of booking their tickets. Since the couple did not avail themselves of this option, they were allotted adjacent seats as they were traveling together.

They further contended that Singapore Airlines aircraft arrived at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, from Singapore to pick up passengers from Hyderabad. Upon the aircraft’s arrival in Hyderabad, the cabin crew discovered that the business class seats allotted to the complainants were not electronically reclining due to an unforeseen technical error. However, the seats could be manually reclined to a flat bed and were otherwise fully functional. The ground staff of Singapore Airlines informed the couple before departure that the chosen seats could only be reclined manually, ensuring no prejudice to them, the airlines claimed.

The Airlines further claimed that upon being informed of the error, the couple did not request alternate seats as the seats could still be reclined to a flat bed. Additionally, the cabin crew offered assistance throughout the journey, including manually reclining the seats for them; the second complainant, after receiving assistance from the cabin crew, was able to recline his seat and rest without any grievance. However, Anjali Gupta refused assistance from the cabin crew and remained asleep throughout the journey. They even claimed that at no point during the journey did either of the complainants apprise Singapore Airlines of any ailing backache.

Upon arrival in Singapore, the first complainant provided feedback acknowledging that seats could be manually reclined. The Opposite Parties replied to the feedback, offering a gift voucher for SGD 150 each. However, they rejected this offer and demanded an upgrade to first class for their return flight. Subsequently, they arranged a meet-and-greet service, which was declined by the couple.

Further offers, including 10,000 KrisFlyer miles per complainant, were rejected. The airlines received a legal notice alleging deficiency of service, which they duly replied to. They contended that the seats’ manual reclining did not constitute a deficiency, as the complainants were informed beforehand and assisted as needed. The claim of physical pain, mental agony, and harassment is unsubstantiated, as no proof was provided, and both complainants had access to fully reclining seats.

Anjali Gupta’s refusal of assistance does not hold Singapore Airlines liable, especially considering she could recline the seat manually. Additionally, no medical condition or discomfort was reported during the flight claimed the airlines and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

On perusal of evidence on record and statements of both the parties, the court noted that it is the admitted fact that the couple booked a business (Z) class ticket for their flight from Hyderabad to Singapore. And Singapore Airlines also admitted that the seats allotted to the couple had a technical error, specifically that the electronic reclining function was not operational prior to the couple’s boarding. However, the airlines did not offer any alternative seats to them despite being aware of the issue.

The court noted that the couple also raised the issue that no electronic switches at their seats were functional during the entire journey, resulting in inconvenience as they had to repeatedly seek assistance from the cabin crew throughout the journey. The court noted that the airlines did not address this specific complaint raised by the couple.

The court noted that for comfortable journey the couple purchased Business (Z) Class tickets by paying Rs.66,750 for each ticket. And despite collecting an additional amount of Rs.48,750 from each complainant for the Business (Z) class, as compared to the economy class, and acknowledging the seat defect, Singapore Airlines failed to offer alternate seats and their compensation offer of 10,000 KrisFlyer miles without refunding the excess amount constitutes both a deficiency of service and an unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to a refund of the additional amount and compensation for the mental and physical suffering endured. Hence, the court ruled in favor of the couple Telangana Ravi Gupta and his wife Anjali Gupta.

The court ordered the airlines to refund Rs.48,750 to each complainant totaling Rs.97,500 to the couple along with interest at 12 percent from May 23, 2023, till realisation. The court also asked to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000 towards mental agony and physical suffer and asked to also pay Rs. 10,000 litigation costs within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.