This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner namely Puneet Yadu Dalmia against the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the State Commission in F.A. No. 452/2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner / complainant booked seven air tickets of first class with the respondent / opposite party – British Airways from Delhi – London, London – Zurich, Rome – London and London – Delhi. 3. It has been alleged by the complainant that flight from Rome to London was delayed for more than three hours thus complainant’s ticket holders were adjusted in some other flight so that connecting flight from London to Delhi was not missed.The complainant alongwith all the six passengers were adjusted in some other flight, however in the business class and not in the first class.It has been alleged in the complaint that no proper lodging facility was provided by the opposite party airline and vegetarian meals were also not supplied by the airline whereas the vegetarian meals were requested by the passengers.The complaint was filed before the District Forum and the complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement, however, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 09.02.2018. 4. The complainant then preferred an appeal being F.A. No.452/2018. However, the State Commission also dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum vide its order dated 24.07.2019.Hence, the present revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused the material on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that when the first class tickets were booked for all seven passengers by paying so much higher amount of fares, passengers were entitled to some basic facility like airline lounge facility as well as meals that they had requested.It was argued by the learned counsel that the opposite party airline did not provide the lounge facility and even the vegetarian meals were not provided to all seven passengers as all the seven passengers had booked vegetarian meals.It was argued by the learned counsel that airline has admitted its fault in their e-mail dated 24.08.2015. The learned counsel relied upon the following paragraph of the e-mail dated 24.08.2015, which is as under:- “When you tell us which special meal you need, we add a request to your booking. As long as we know at least 24 hours before your flight, there should not be a problem at all, however, something clearly went wrong this time. It’s very unusual for a special meal not to be loaded on board, but if it does not happen, our crew report it to our Catering Manager straight away so they can look into it. I have also sent a report to our catering team to make them aware of how this affected your journey.” 7. On the basis of above paragraph, the learned counsel argued that airline had admitted the mistake in not supplying the proper meals to these seven passengers due to delay in airline.Learned counsel stated that parents of the complainant could not take proper medicines in time and children also suffered as they could not get their meals at the proper time.Both the Fora below have not considered these problems faced by the complainant and his family members.Apart from this the learned counsel also emphasized that lounge facility was not provided at the airport, therefore, all the seven passengers had to face lot of problem at the airport itself.Thus, deficiency on the part of the airline is clearly proved, however, both the Fora below have given clean chit to the airline and complaint as well as appeal have been dismissed by the Fora below. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 9. It is seen from the order of the District forum that District Forum has recorded the following in respect of the meals:- “7. The complainant has alleged that Asian Vegetarian food was not provided in the Aircraft to him but from the circumstances of the case, it emerges that only one Asian Food was booked and as such the food was provided as per the request made by the complainant and members of his family. The allegation that the complainant and members of his family remained hungry cannot be said to have substantiated.” 10. From the above, it is brought out that only one Asian food was booked and this food was provided as per request of the complainant.In this regard, the complainant has relied upon the e-mail dated 24.08.2015, wherein airline has stated that something clearly went wrong this time. 11. Though, complaint has taken this as an admission on the part of the airline, however, it can mean both the things that something went wrong from the side of the complainant or something went wrong from the side of the airline.In the context of the findings given by the District Forum as mentioned above, the chances may be that airline is referring to the mistake by the complainant. 12. So far lounge facility is concerned, the airport of Rome and London are big airports and chances are there that air lounges will be there and any person having a relevant ticket can avail services of these lounges of the specific airline. 13. The important legal aspect in the present case is that complainant is disputing the findings of the facts given by the Fora below.The fact is that both the Fora below have given concurrent findings of facts in respect of the services provided by the airline and in respect of the deficiencies alleged by the complainant.Against the concurrent findings of facts, the scope under the revision petition is quite limited and facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 as follows:- “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.” 14. The District Forum in its order has given liberty to the complainant to seek refund of difference in the fare of first class and the business class from booking agent.The learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant has not argued anything about the refund of the difference of the fares.It seems that problem of refund is not persisting. 15. On the basis of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 24.07.2019 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission.Accordingly, R.P. No. 2154 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage. | 
