Passenger wins case against Air India over hair found in meal
On July 19, 2002, Sundaraparipooranam sent a legal notice through his lawyer, stating that he had suffered vomiting and stomach pain due to the incident. He later filed a lawsuit seeking Rs 11 lakh in compensation. Air India issued an apology on July 20, 2002, expressing regret for the inconvenience caused.
ADVERTISEMENT
P. Sundaraparipooranam, an Air India passenger who booked flight IC 574 to travel from Colombo to Chennai on July 26, 2002, discovered strands of hair in his sealed food packet, according to an Economic Times report.
During the flight, he was served a sealed meal, and upon opening it, he found a few strands of hair, which made him nauseous. He was unable to file a complaint on board as there were no complaint boxes or forms available, and the cabin crew allegedly ignored his grievance.
After landing, he fell ill and lodged a complaint with the airline’s Deputy General Manager (Commercial). Air India expressed regret in a letter dated July 12, 2002, and stated that an internal inquiry had been initiated.
On July 19, 2002, Sundaraparipooranam sent a legal notice through his lawyer, stating that he had suffered vomiting and stomach pain due to the incident. He later filed a lawsuit seeking Rs 11 lakh in compensation. Air India issued an apology on July 20, 2002, expressing regret for the inconvenience caused.
In court, the airline acknowledged that Sundaraparipooranam was a frequent flyer and that such an incident had never occurred before. The airline argued that the incident could not be classified as negligence warranting ₹11 lakh in damages.
Air India’s counsel also contended that catering services had been outsourced to Ambassador Pallava, a five-star hotel in Chennai, and that the airline should not be held liable for the caterer’s actions.
The trial court, however, ruled in favour of the passenger and ordered Air India to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation. The airline appealed the verdict in the Madras High Court. On October 10, 2025, the High Court upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling in favour of Sundaraparipooranam.
