This order shall dispose of Revision Petitions No.2875, 4193 – 4217/2012 and Revision Petitions No.2876, 4218 – 4247/2012 by a common order as the facts and law point involved in these revision petitions is the same.  Facts are being taken from R.P. No. 2875/2012.

           Respondent No.1, along with his family and other friends had gone to Singapore and booked themselves for return journey by Air India Airlines (petitioner herein) by flight No. MI-473 departing on 24.6.2007 from Singapore to Mumbai.  According to Singapore time, the flight was scheduled at 21.40 hours and the passengers reached the airport 2 hours in advance as per rules.  As per allegations made in the complaint, the authorities had informed the passengers that the flight was on time and thereafter announced that the flight would take off after one hour.  After one hour, the complainants enquired again from the personnel of petitioner, who misbehaved with them.  In spite of waiting for 5 hours, no information was given as to at what time the flight would take off.  It was only at 12.30 in the midnight that information was given that the flight would take off at 1.30 midnight.  Thus, the flight took off after four hours of delay.  In the flight, when the passengers demanded blankets, the blankets were also not made available, with the result, some of the complainants became unwell.  The flight reached Mumbai at 4 a.m. but there was no arrangement of ladder which took 35 minutes for being brought.  At the airport,  no  coach  was  available  and  the  baggage  was delivered  at  5.55  a.m.  in  the  morning.   Complainants  had  booked Kingfisher Airlines’ Indore-bound flight whose time schedule was 7.00 a.m. but on account of delayed arrival at Mumbai, that flight was missed.  Being aggrieved, respondents filed complaints before the District Forum.

        On being served, petitioner entered appearance and filed its written statement taking the plea that the flight was delayed due to technical fault in the aircraft; that whenever there is a delay due to technical reasons which are beyond the control of the authorities, no compensation can be awarded a per the provisions of Carriage by Air Act.

        District Forum allowed the complaint the directed to the petitioner to pay to each of the complainant a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards costs for the reason that the cause of delay was not announced.

        Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by a common order.

Finding recorded by the fora below that the respondents were inconvenienced due to delay and that the petitioner had not informed the passengers about the cause of delay, is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

        We do not find any such error of jurisdiction.  This apart, the compensation awarded is only Rs.5,000/- for each of the complainant.  Cost of litigation in this Commission would be much more than the amount involved.

No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.