Now Everyone Can Claim For Damages For Mistreatment by AirAsia




A pregnant housewife ordered to disembark from an AirAsia aircraft in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia three years ago for not having a medical certificate to travel, was awarded RM43,999 in damages by the Court of Appeal here today.


BK sidhu, the editor of Star Business, who is known to have published an article to mislead the investing public that the IPO of AirAsia X shares will be over-subscribed by 5 to 6 time.
BK sidhu, the editor of Star Business, who is known to have published an article to mislead the investing public that the IPO of AirAsia X shares will be over-subscribed by 5 to 6 times.


Thank you Berjan Kaur Sidhu for alerting yours truly of this news.  Of course, the highly acclaimed Star Business editor Ms BK Sidhu must have INADVERTENTLY overlooked this piece of adverse news against AirAsia which was circulated by Bernama.  Please do not expect adverse news on AirAsia from Ms BK Sidhu.


Couple win RM43,999 in damages from AirAsia

Posted on 7 May 2014 – 06:00pm
Last updated on 7 May 2014 – 07:46pm

PUTRAJAYA: A pregnant housewife ordered to disembark from an AirAsia aircraft in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia three years ago for not having a medical certificate to travel, was awarded RM43,999 in damages by the Court of Appeal here today.

Patricia Karen Chew Mei Yik, 44, and her husband Michael Januarius, 57 won the suit against AirAsia Berhad after the three-member panel allowed their appeal to overturn a High Court’s dismissal of the same.

Court of Appeal judge Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail awarded the couple special damages of RM18,999 as well as RM25,000 in general damages. He further ordered AirAsia to pay 5% interest per annum from Dec 27, 2011, when the writ was filed, to the date of full settlement.

Justice Abdul Wahab, who presided on the panel with Justices Datuk David Wong Dak Wah and Datuk Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, also ordered AirAsia to pay RM10,000 in legal cost.

In their statement of claim, Chew and Januarius, a businessman, said they had bought return AirAsia flight tickets to Bali on Feb 2, 2011. After spending the holiday in Bali with their then four-year-old daughter (now aged 7 years) they boarded the plane to return to Kuala Lumpur on Feb 26, 2011.

The couple claimed that prior to take off a stewardess had asked Chew, who was then 28 weeks pregnant, whether she had a letter from a doctor certifying that she was fit to travel by plane.

Chew said she had obtained a certificate from gynaecologist Datuk Dr Ang Chin Guan of the Sime Darby Specialist Centre Megah Sdn Bhd issued on Feb 11, 2011.

She told the stewardess however that she had handed the certificate to a stewardess whose name she could not remember on the Feb 20, 2011 flight from Kuala Lumpur to Denpasar.

Chew claimed that the stewardess had told her in an angry tone that the airline’s online system did not show the certificate and to get a new doctor’s certificate. At that point Chew’s husband decided to remain on the plane without his wife and child as he had to attend a corporate reception in Kuala Lumpur.

The couple, however, claimed that the stewardess told them to go to the front door of the aircraft for discussion, but once there they were ordered to disembark from the plane by a security guard and the door of the aircraft was closed.

The couple said they lost a hand luggage containing a camera and a laptop which was left in the aircraft. They said they were disappointed and humiliated by the handling of the situation.

Chew subsequently obtained a fitness certificate from a medical officer at the Denpasar airport which allowed the entire family to board another flight to Kuala Lumpur.

In its defence, AirAsia denied that Chew and her family were treated harshly, adding that its staff were trained to handle any situation involving passengers patiently, calmly, politely and professionally.

The company claimed that its staff in the incident were only carrying out their duties according to its standard operating procedures and enforceable rules.

On Aug 29, 2012, the High Court in Shah Alam dismissed their suit. Chew and Januarius were represented by lawyer M.Manoharan while lawyers Zaini Mazlan and Raja Nurul Iylia Raja Mohd Tajuddin appeared for AirAsia. – Bernama


For the above Sun Newspapers report, HERE.

Please also another case where the court had awarded damages for AirAsia’s flight delay, HERE.


16 thoughts on “Now Everyone Can Claim For Damages For Mistreatment by AirAsia

  1. The low caste

    Bravo! Court of Appeal has done justice to the disabled people in Malaysia. Padan muka for not being disabled friendly. I hope that the pariah / low caste airline will face more of such claims in the court of other countries too. Remember RM60 for wheel chair service per trip. We must let the world know about this low caste and his low caste airline are all about.

  2. Arasu

    Mr Wee, just focus on Air Asia lah.

    Why BK Sidhu here?

    Do you do that when you get information on MAS…revealing your source?

    Double standards – I see!

    1. Pariah's Journalist

      What double standard lah? Double standard is when the information published based on sources turned out to be untrue like “AAX IPO share over-subscribed by 5 to 6 times. Not only it was under-subscribed by may be 5 to 6 times and thee IPO price of RM1.45 was reduced to RM1.25. Furhter Maybank had to pump into fund more than MR30 million to stabilize the AA share price. That article by the gutter journalist BK Sidhu was clearly designed to outright mislead the investors.

      Look at what she had written and highlighted on AirAsia. She only write very positive stories about AirAsia and her Pariah boss. Has a single story that not favorable to AirAsia or her pariah boss. No.

      We in the Star know about her.

      BK Sidhu should not be allowed to be a cadet reporter let alone editor. She has brought disrepute to the journalism. If am the boss of Star I will remove her and put her to report to June Wong in one small room for them to write what they want between them.

      1. IT.Scheiss

        In 2006, an editor at The Star was somewhat “kicked upstairs”, posted out of the country and effectively relieved of his post and after he returned, he was assigned to some obscure position.

        He had earlier refused to publish a misleading article about a major advertiser, which incurred the ire of the then Group Chief Editor.

        What choice then does BK Sidhu, June Wong or anyone else at The Star have, when Tony Fernandez is on the board of Star Publications.

        I would go after The Star itself, rather than individual employees.

    2. Anonymous

      The pariah is no longer a member of the board of directors. Most probably he was removed and resigned for good reason. This pariah with English name thought that he is a mat salleh but we knew that the English name is to cover his pariah’s background. BK Sidhu never learn, she thought that she could fool the readers. Now she has been put into the limelight and had no where to hide. She has prostituted herself as a journalist. She will write anything to paint a beautiful picture for the pariah and his outfits without any concern whether he writing will mislead the readers. She must be whacked to the fullest so that others will not dare to do like her. She is just a mercenary and not a journalist.

    3. Anonymous

      How did this prostitute journalist BK Sidhu become Business Editor of the Star??? Just a bloody balachi to the pariah.

      1. Now Everyone Knows the Truth

        Confirm ah pariah no longer on the board of directors of the star? Then that makes the prostitute journalist, BK Sidhu even worse. Not that she is a good journalist with dignity to begin with. 😝

  3. the mole

    of course, no standard for liars and hi standard for the rest.
    We must expose and stop liars before rest be liars.

  4. AirAsiaSampahAirline

    Congrats to the lady who won her case against Air Asia. I have a feeling Air Asia will drag its feet in making this payment. Instead probably they will offer her Air Asia vouchers so that she and her family can continually be abused by the airline as an act of revenge.

    Air Asia – a trashy brand representing deceit, arrogance, lousy service and insults to air travellers.

  5. Now Everyone Must Avoid AirAsia

    AirAsia memang a sampah airline. In fact “sampah” is too mild a word. It treat its customer like shit. The advbertisement was most misleading. It will say offer of cheap price from RM10 with small print onward. When you go to its website, you will never get it. Now Everyone Must Avoid AirAsia: unless there are no alternatives. Now that we have MAS, Malindo, Lion Air, Cebu Pacific and Tiger, why allow ourselves to be tortured.

    Always remember: Tony had said: “If the fae is priced low enough, Malaysians will be prepared to risk their lives.” This is how Tony looks at Malaysians. We must punished him for being ungrateful and treated us like beggars.

    1. Anonymous

      Ya the bloody ungrateful & big headed pariah. Saying mahb have to be grateful to Airasia. Everyone already knows that Airasia is the main operator at KLIA2 but you don’t have to be arrogant! Cehh! Typical low-caste no-class pariah!

  6. I am just wondering that if some other airlines refusing the passenger for the same reason, get sued and the passenger won the same award; would it be a news worthy item Mr Wee?

    1. Anonymous

      It is about misleading people and portraying like they are always doing service to the people especially Malaysians when in fact they are treating the customers like shit, that’s the point! And the court has decided.

  7. Low Caste Bas.ard

    YB do you know that this low caste bastard is charging per passenger airport fees of MR3.00. Passenger already paid the airport tax. Airport service is included in the airport tax. Airport is provided by MAB and not the low caste pariah using English name. What is the Ministry of transport doing about this?

    1. Ken

      Airport Fee is fee payable by passengers, not airlines. Airlines are just collecting on behalf of airport operators. There are additional charges to airlines for usage of aerobridge, baggage handling fee, etc. in KLIA 2 compared to LCCT. There is nothing wrong if AA decided to pass on the additional cost to customers. Anyway, they could have phrase it using different words to minimize criticism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.