REKHA GUPTA Revision petition nos. 2712 of 2008 and 2713 of 2008 have been filed by the petitioners Mr Anil Goyal and Mr Arvinder Pal and Others, against the impugned orders dated 01.04.2008 in Appeal nos. 20 of 2008 and 874 of 2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (tate Commission. Since both the revision petitions have been filed against the same impugned order of the State Commission, we propose to pass a common order. 2. The brief facts as stated in the complaint no. 202 of 2007 titled Arvinder Pal vs M/s Indus Airways Private Ltd., as that the petitioners/ complainants were to attend a family function at New Delhi on 29.12.2006 at 08.00 P M. They purchased air tickets to travel from Chandigarh to Delhi. Payments were made through credit card and the status of tickets was confirmed. The flight was scheduled to start from Chandigarh at 05.30 P M. Petitioners reached domestic airport terminal, Chandigarh at 04.30 P M on the said date but they were informed by the staff of M/s Indus Airways Private Limited Respondent herein that the flight had been cancelled, but no reason was assigned. At that time neither weather was foggy, nor, there was any natural calamity but on inquiry they came to know that the flight had been cancelled due to less passengers booked for 29.12.2006 on the route from Chandigarh to Delhi. Ultimately, they hired a taxi for Delhi to attend the function and spent Rs.4,000/-. Cancellation of flight caused much pain and agony to them and they had to incur expenditure and they claimed in all Rs.2,17,900/-, including price of tickets, taxi charges and compensation for harassment etc. 3. Respondent/opposite party contested the complaint and admitted the purchase of tickets and payment through credit cards but stated that the said flight could not land at Chandigarh due to unavailability of watch hours which was beyond their control. They denied that the flight was cancelled due to less passengers. They further stated that they had given an offer to the petitioners for refund of full amount of tickets or they could enjoy complementary tickets with existing tickets up to 28.02.2007 but the same was not accepted. They denied other allegations and stated that the complaint should be dismissed. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Union Territory, Chandigarh (he District Forum vide order dated 27.09.2007 accepted the complaint with cost of Rs.1100/-. They were allowed compensation of Rs.40,000/- i.e., Rs.10,000/- each for mental agony and harassment etc., besides reimbursement of taxi charges to the tune of Rs.4,000/-. The same was ordered to be paid within 30 days failing which interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 29.12.2006 till payment was to be given. 5. In complaint no. 198 of 2007 which was filed by Shri Anil Goyal, it was claimed that he was invited to attend some business engagement at Gurgaon on 29.12.2006 and as such had purchased air ticket to travel from Chandigarh to Delhi and the payment was made through credit card. The status of the ticket was confirmed. The flight was to start from Chandigarh at 05.30 P M and when he reached the domestic airport terminal, Chandigarh at 04.30 P M, he was informed by the staff of Indus Airways that the flight had been cancelled. Other allegations are the same. Respondents filed reply opposing the complaint and taking same pleas as were taken in complaint case no. 202 of 2007. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing the counsel for the parties, District Forum accepted the complaint with cost of Rs.1100/- and awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- besides Rs.4,000/- as refund of taxi charges. Amount was to be paid within 30 days otherwise the same would carry interest @ 9% with effect from 29.12.2006 till payment. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum two separate appeals were filed by the respondents before the State Commission. Against the interim order dated 09.01.2008, two different revision petitions were also filed. In the said order it had been stated that since the OPs had intentionally not obeyed the order and had not made payment within time as directed by the Forum, therefore, Managing Director of M/s Indus Airways be sentenced to imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.10,000/-. The State Commission vide their order dated 01.04.2008 accepted the appeals and stated that he impugned orders being illegal are set aside and the complaints are dismissed. Since the impugned order do not stand, the orders passed on 09.01.2008 for arrest of Managing Director of M/s Indus Airways also do not stand and are set aside having become infructuous. Consequently, the revision petitions are accepted 7. While accepting the appeal, the State Commission observed as under: here is no dispute about it that on 29.12.2006 the complainants were to travel from Chandigarh to Delhi against confirmed tickets issued by M/s Indus Airways. The time of departure on 29.12.2006 from Chandigarh for Delhi from domestic airport terminal was 17.30 hours (05.30 P M). The case of complainants is that they had reached domestic airport terminal, Chandigarh at 04.30 PM and on inquiry from the staff of M/s Indus Airways, they came to know that the flight had been cancelled but the reasons was not assigned for cancellation of flight. They further stated that on that date neither the weather was foggy, nor there was any natural calamity but on further inquiry they discovered that flight was cancelled due to less passengers booked for the flight on the route from Chandigarh to Delhi. The appellants had denied that flight had been cancelled which was scheduled to start from Chandigarh at 05.30 PM on 29.12.2006 due to less passengers booked. The Airport Authority Chandigarh had issued certificate dated 15.12.2007 which is very relevant in this case. The airport authorities had certified that Indus Airways Private Limited scheduled flight no. 09-103 from Mumbai to Chandigarh was unable to land at Chandigarh airport on 29.12.2006 due to closure of airfield after 2020 hours. They have further certified that Chandigarh airfield normal watch hour is from Dawn to Dusk and initial extension of watch hours was given with the request of above airline. They next stated that due to closure of Chandigarh airfield during the arrival time, Indus Airways Flight 09-103 was diverted to IGI Airport, Delhi. In the ticket annexure C 1 issued in favour of Shri Arvinder Pal the flight number has been mentioned to be 09-202. However, in the certificate issued by Airport Authorities, Chandigarh, flight number has been mentioned to be 09-103. In the complaint of Shri Anil Goyal the flight number has not been mentioned. The affidavit of Mrs Lili Beri, Director, M/s Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd., dated 18.03.2008 duly attested by the Oath Commissioner has been filed. It states that M/s Indus Airways Pvt., Ltd., used to operate one flight daily which originated from Delhi Chandigarh Mumbai Chandigarh Delhi. It was next stated that flight which originated from Delhi was numbered 09-101 to Chandigarh and thereafter when it took off from Chandigarh for Mumbai it was known as 09-102 and when it originated from Mumbai back to Chandigarh the flight was known as 09-103 and when it landed at Chandigarh and took off to Delhi it was known as 09-202. It next stated that when complainant had purchased the ticket from Chandigarh to Delhi the flight number was given as 09-202 but the flight which was coming from Mumbai to Chandigarh was given the flight no. 09-103 and since the flight no. 09-103 did not land at Chandigarh. Therefore, flight no. 09-202 from Chandigarh to Delhi did not originate. It is further stated that flight no. 09-202 was to take off from Chandigarh to Delhi at 17.40 hours but the same was delayed and appellant company had paid for the watch hours to the airport authority but due to closer of airfield after 20.20 hours the same was not allowed to land. On 29.12.2006 due to fog at Delhi airport the flight was delayed and thereafter same continued to be delayed even at Mumbai airport due to traffic congestion. There is no dispute about it that in the month of December, fog is heavy as winter session is on its peak. Hence, certificate coupled with the affidavit of Mrs Lili Beri, Director of M/s Indus Airways, positively proves that there was only one flight which was operated by M/s Indus Airways Pvt., Ltd., and that flight was delayed at Delhi Mumbai route due to fog and even the appellant (M/s Indus Airways) got the watch hours extended but due to closure of the airfield at 20.20 flight no. 09-103 could not land and was diverted to IGI Airport, Delhi. Hence, it gives lie to the version of complainants that flight was cancelled due to less booked passengers 8. Hence, the present revision petitions. 9. The main grounds for the revision petitions are as follows: The State Commission, U T Chandigarh failed to consider the facts that the flight was scheduled to start from Chandigarh at 05.30 P M on 29.12.2006. When the petitioner reached the Domestic Airport Terminal Chandigarh at 04.30 P M on the said date they were informed by the staff of the respondents that the flight had been cancelled but no reason was assigned for the cancellation of flight. Neither the weather was foggy nor there was any natural calamity but on enquiry it was discovered that the flight was cancelled due to less passengers, i.e., only five passengers were booked for 29.12.2006 on the route from Chandigarh to Delhi, as such, due to less of number of passengers the flight has been cancelled, as the same would cause huge losses to the respondents/ company. The State Commission, U T Chandigarh erroneously reversed the finding of the District Forum 1, Chandigarh and failed to appreciate the admitted facts that after receipt of the notice from the District Forum 1, UT, Chandigarh, the respondents filed written statement and evidence and admitted the contents of the complaint but they submitted that the said flight could not land due to unavailability of watch hours which was beyond the control of OPs. The OPs has not denied the facts that only five passengers were booked from Chandigarh. The respondents preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum 1 dated 27.09.2007. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the complaint vide a common order dated 01.04.2008 by holding that the respondents are not at fault, without any regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and that too just on the basis of procured certificate and false affidavit submitted by the respondents by way of additional evidence. It is submitted that the respondents procured a certificate as per their/ its own convenience and thereafter the same was produced by the respondents before the State Commission, Chandigarh in appeal along with an application for additional evidence. Mrs Lili Beri, Director of the respondent intentionally, deliberately and knowingly filed a false affidavit by way of additional evidence on the basis of clever manipulation, procured certificate dated 15.12.2007 to cover up their misdeed and mislead the State Commission, Chandigarh and the same was considered as genuine evidence by the State Commission and on the basis of above and false evidence, the State Commission, Chandigarh held that the respondents are not at fault and dismissed the complaint. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. It is an admitted fact that flight no. 09-103 from Mumbai did not land at Chandigarh and therefore, flight no. 09-202 from Delhi to Chandigarh did not originate. This was due to the fact that a single aircraft was to fly on the sector Delhi Chandigarh Mumbai Chandigarh Delhi and due to weather conditions and the fog which normally occur in northern India during the month of December the flight schedule was disturbed. Since the flight from Mumbai could not land and due to unavailability of watch hour at Chandigarh it was cancelled and diverted directly to Delhi. It is also an admitted fact that the scheduled flight was 05.30 p m and at 04. 30 p m, they were informed by the staff regarding the cancellation of the flight and offered refund. 11. Though the counsel for the petitioner has argued that the flight was cancelled not due to weather conditions but on account of only five passengers who were found to be travelling from Chandigarh, counsel for the petitioner could not show or file any documents in support of her claim. She could also not file any document to support her argument that the weather conditions were not foggy. Airlines have to take decisions regarding flight schedules in the interest of passenger safety. These decisions have to be taken as per the weather conditions and the facilities available at the airports for night landing. At the Chandigarh airport the available watch hour were from dawn to dusk. 12. Thus, in view of the facts stated above no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. Since, the State Commission have given a detailed and well-reasoned order which does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, present revision petitions arehereby, dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.