For the Petitioner : Dr. Ashutosh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Upender Thakur, Advocate Dated, the 8th day of July, 2010

ORDER

JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 8.12.09 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal no. 625/09. By the said order, the State Commission has not only dismissed the appeal and maintained the dismissal order of the District Forum but also burdened the appellant/petitioner herein with a penalty of Rs.500/- to be deposited with the ‘State Consumer Welfare ..2.. Fund’ Legal Aid, State Commission, New Delhi. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint and the said order, the original complainant has filed the present petition. 2. We have heard Dr. Ashutosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Upender Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent and have considered their respective submissions. So far as, the finding of the State Commission that the complaint filed by the complainant was altogether frivolous or vexatious is concerned, we may simply observe that the said finding was not warranted because in the facts and circumstance of the case, any person in position of the complainant would have felt aggrieved and have considered to agitate the matter before the consumer forum. 3. So far as deficiency in service is concerned, it is pleaded by the respondent airlines that the passenger has to report to the checking counter at least two hours before the departure time of the flight depending upon the nature of the flight and the security requirements. In this connection, we have nothing to say because these are the general conditions required to be followed by the concerned airlines. ..3.. However, what offended the petitioner was that the flight which was scheduled to leave at 10.30 hours left at 10.10 hours and no intimation about the preponement of the flight was passed to the petitioner so as to enable him to reach at the airport earlier than the expected time. In our view, this would certainly amount to deficiency in service for which the respondent airlines should compensate the petitioner. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that though the claim of the petitioner on various counts is exaggerated and untenable but we are inclined to award a reasonable compensation viz. Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner for such a deficiency in service. We hope that the respondent airlines will have no grudge in paying the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. The revision petition stands disposed of with these observations.