Singapore

CNA Explains: Non-reclining seat? Compensation options if your flight experience falls short
Singapore Airlines was recently ordered by an Indian court to pay a couple more than S$3,500 for their faulty business class seats.

The interior of a plane cabin. (Photo: iStock/VanWyckExpress)

Emil Chan
01 May 2024 06:00AM
Bookmark
Share
SINGAPORE: From missing baggage to being stranded on the tarmac, what should have been an uneventful plane ride is now a distressing experience.

In most cases the airline involved may offer some form of compensation or even full refunds, as was a case last year when a New Zealand couple had to sit next to a "snorting, farting" dog during their flight.

The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) recorded 375 complaints against airlines in 2023, usually involving booking systems, double bookings and damaged or missing baggage.

But what happens if the compensation offered isn’t up to scratch, or if passengers feel their grievances are not sufficiently addressed?

CNA finds out what you can do should a resolution not be reached.

THE CASE OF THE FAULTY SEATS
Last week, Singapore Airlines were ordered by a Hyderabad court to pay an Indian couple more than S$3,500 for their faulty business class seats.

Ravi Gupta and his wife Anjali Gupta were travelling from Hyderabad to Australia via Singapore when their seats – which were supposed to recline electronically – malfunctioned, forcing them to "stay awake throughout the journey", reported Indian media.

Mr Gupta – who is Telangana’s director general of police – also claimed that, except for the extra legroom, they were treated as economy class passengers despite paying 66,750 rupees (S$1,090) each for a business class ticket.

"If an aggrieved customer takes the view that the airline has failed to perform its contractual obligations in full, the customer may have recourse against the airline based on the underlying service contract", said Mr Darren Tan, deputy managing director of Invictus Law Corporation.

Airlines such as SIA normally offer some form of compensation.

In the case of the Guptas, SIA had initially offered 10,000 KrisFlyer miles per person, but they rejected the offer.

Related:

Higher travel demand putting pressure on aviation sector, even as more mid-career workers stay

Commentary: Appalling employee behaviour reflects airline woes, not just attitude problems
Lawyers told CNA that in the event of a dispute, customers may first negotiate privately with the airline to achieve an amicable solution.

But "if no agreement is reached and the customer remains unsatisfied, he may make a complaint to the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), which handles disputes between registered companies in Singapore and consumers," said Ms Sophia Ng, an associate at Eugene Thuraisingam LLP.

"Any such settlement is normally contained within a settlement agreement which will be legally binding in court."

There is a catch, however, as customers would need to become a CASE member and pay a nominal fee to cover the administrative costs of settling the dispute.

This service applies only to companies registered in Singapore, though CASE does have partnerships with its overseas counterparts.

CASE said on its website its resolution rate for mediation is approximately 70 per cent.

GOING TO COURT
If there is still no settlement, the customer may choose to bring the matter to court.

For the Guptas, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Hyderabad ruled that SIA should refund 48,750 rupees to each complainant, along with 12 per cent interest.

The airline was also reportedly ordered to pay a compensation of 100,000 rupees for "mental agony and physical suffering", as well as 10,000 rupees for the costs of the complaint, according to local media.

In total, the airline was ordered to pay 219,200 rupees, which is about S$3,580.

In Singapore, a customer can consider taking the matter to the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) of the State Courts, which are "designed to resolve low-value disputes between consumers and suppliers in a quick and cost-effective manner", said Mr Tan.

The SCT resolves small claims involving goods, services or residential tenancy agreements not exceeding two years. The claim limit is S$20,000, or S$30,000 if there is a Memorandum of Consent signed by both parties.

Related:

Former cabin crew member sues Singapore Airlines for S$1.7 million after allegedly falling on aircraft

Commentary: Thinking about flying? The price is only going up, up, up
MORE TROUBLE THAN WORTH?
However, while still quicker and a less expensive way of settling disputes than if the parties had gone to a civil trial, filing and serving a claim is a long and time-consuming process.

"As a matter of process, parties in an SCT action must first attend consultation, where a registrar attempts to resolve the dispute", said Ms Ng.

"The claim proceeds to a hearing before a Magistrate if the matter cannot be settled. The Magistrate will determine the claim in accordance with the terms of the contract/terms and conditions between the airline and the customer, and applicable contract law principles.

"Alternatively, a court action can also be brought in the Magistrates’ Courts or District Courts."

Lawyers are not allowed to represent parties in SCT proceedings, though they can be hired to provide legal advice.

Customers will also need to pay a fee depending on the claim amount. A customer would need to pay S$10 for claims up to S$5,000 and S$20 for claims above S$5,000 but up to S$10,000. For claims above S$10,000, a customer would have to pay 1 per cent of that amount.

But even if the customer obtains a decision in their favour, they will have to start execution or enforcement proceedings in the civil courts if the other party does not comply with the court order to pay up, as the SCT cannot execute or enforce the order on the customer’s behalf.

"Enforcing an order does not guarantee an outcome. You should weigh the pros and cons before proceeding," read the Singapore Courts website.

"You will have to spend time and effort to make the necessary applications to enforce the order and there is no guarantee that you will be able to recover anything from the enforcement respondent."

The enforcement applicant would also be required to pay a fee for enforcing the order.

"COURT" OF PUBLIC OPINION
Ms Ng said customers should only bring a dispute to court as a last resort and that an out-of-court amicable resolution, whether directly with the airline or via CASE, would be the most ideal.

"This is given that time and resources (including possible legal fees) spent to pursue such a claim may possibly exceed the damages that are awarded in the end," she said.

Given the relatively low claim amounts and the absence of a guarantee of a favourable ruling, big companies like airlines may prefer that disputes go to court rather than dealing with the aggrieved customer.

"That said, the Courts of Singapore are much less likely to order, or to be as generous as the Hyderabad’s District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in ordering compensation for ‘mental agony and physical suffering’ suffered by the customer," said Mr Tan.

He added that customers may be better served airing their grievances on social media in order to pressure bigger companies.

Last year, SIA brought back appetisers for economy class meals and reversed its decision to use paper serviceware after netizens gave the thumbs down on social media.

"In the circumstances, it may at times be more effective (in terms of achieving the desired outcome) for the aggrieved customer to ventilate the matter in the ‘court’ of public opinion than in a court of law in such situations," said Mr Tan.

"It may get them further than court proceedings."
Source: CNA/ec