• HOME»
  • »
  • Air India Urination Case: Air India submits response to DGCA

Air India Urination Case: Air India submits response to DGCA

In connection with the alleged urination incident onboard, an Air India flight between New York and Delhi, Air India has submitted its reply to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).  Meanwhile, in the matter, the airline has submitted its reply to the DGCA, and after reviewing that, the final decision will be taken. Earlier […]

Advertisement
Air India Urination Case: Air India submits response to DGCA

In connection with the alleged urination incident onboard, an Air India flight between New York and Delhi, Air India has submitted its reply to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). 

Meanwhile, in the matter, the airline has submitted its reply to the DGCA, and after reviewing that, the final decision will be taken.

Earlier on 6 January a show cause notice was issued to the Accountable Manager of Air India, the Director of in-flight Services of Air India, and all the pilots and cabin crew members of that flight. 

Moreover, only two weeks were given to the airline by the DGCA to submit their reply, and on that date action will be taken. 

Earlier on Thursday, Air India banned accused Shankar Mishra from flying for four months in a urination case, and it is expected that other airlines will also ban him. 

However, after the decision of Air India to ban Shankar Mishra from flying for four months, his legal team showed their disagreement with the committee’s findings. 

Accused Shankar Mishra’s advocates, Ishanee Sharma and Akshat Bajpai, said, “We respect the authority and mandate of the Internal Inquiry Committee, we disagree with their findings and are already in the process of appealing this decision in accordance with the DGCA CAR for Unruly Passengers.”

Talking to the media Mishra’s lawyer said that “we would particularly like to point out that the Internal Inquiry Committee’s ruling hinges upon their incorrect understanding of the layout of the Aircraft.”

“When the Committee could not find an adequate explanation as to how the accused could have urinated on the complainant sitting on seat 9A without also affecting the passenger on Seat 9C, it has erroneously gone on to assume that there was a seat 9B in the business class in the aircraft and imagined that the accused could have stood at this imaginary seat and urinated on the complainant on seat 9A. However, there is no seat 9B in the business class on the craft – only seats 9A and 9C,” the statement said.

Furthermore, on 26 November, the incident took place on an Air India flight from John F Kennedy International Airport in New York to Delhi, the flight was on its way.

Advertisement