Durairaj Santiran, 35, alleged that his former employer was negligent for allowing the workplace to be unsafe, The Straits Times reported.
In court yesterday, SIA claimed that Durairaj’s “entire story” was bogus, which he denied.
According to the report, Durairaj, now a customer care analyst in Malaysia, claimed he slipped on a patch of grease, which he had been asked to clean, during a flight from San Francisco to Singapore on Sept 6, 2019.
He told the court he fell on his back and hit his head on the floor.
Durairaj, who was employed by SIA from April 2016 to April 2021, claimed that as a result of the injuries to his spine, he was medically unfit to continue working as a flight steward.
The damages he sought include S$1.29 million for loss of future earnings, S$30,000 for loss of earning capacity and S$150,000 for future medical and transport expenses.
The report said Durairaj wore a neck brace when he attended court yesterday, the first day of a 10-day trial.
His lawsuit alleged that SIA had failed to ensure that the floor of the plane was free of any substance that might cause him to slip, and failed to ensure that there was a system of cleaning to keep the floors safe.
His lawyers, Ramasamy Chettiar and Kasturibai Manickam, contended in their opening statement that the floor of the galley was slippery and therefore unsafe. They said the fact that SIA did not take any preventive measures showed that the work system was not adequate.
SIA denied Durairaj’s claims. Its lawyers, Niru Pillai and Liew Teck Huat, said the airline paid all valid and legitimate claims made by employees, but responded “firmly” to invalid, illegitimate and false claims.
“The defendant treats this as a highly questionable claim which they are obliged to contest resolutely,” the report quoted them as saying.
The lawyers highlighted that Durairaj had made two previous work injury claims, in 2017 and 2018, which the airline did not contest. In these claims, they said, Durairaj was awarded compensation for back and neck injuries through the Work Injury Compensation Act (Wica) process.
For the 2019 incident, SIA’s insurer objected to his Wica claim on the basis that his injuries appeared to be pre-existing.
SIA contended that there was no grease patch as alleged, and that no passenger or crew member had slipped or fallen.