Challenge in this Revision Petition, by Spicejet Ltd. (for short “the Airlines”), the Sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 18.5.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.837/2016.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 21.7.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul in Consumer Complaint No.30/2015.  By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Airlines in unilaterally cancelling its flight due for departure from Goa to Delhi at 1345 hrs. on 17.12.2014, in which the Complainant and his wife had confirmed bookings, the District Forum had directed the Airlines to pay to both of them a sum of ₹20,000/- each, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by them on account of the said cancellation; interest @ 10% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization;  refund of the extra amount, the Complainant had to pay on account of change in the Airlines, with interest @ 10% p.a. for the aforesaid period and litigation expenses, quantified at ₹5,500/-.

        In short, the grievance of the Airlines is that for arriving at the finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Airlines, both the Forums below have committed a material error by proceeding on the premise that the flight was cancelled.  According to the learned Counsel, appearing for the Airlines, the flight was not cancelled but its time for departure was re-scheduled by after about 6 hours.     

Having heard the learned Counsel and perused the rival stands in the pleadings, we are of the view that there is no substance in the present Revision Petition. 

In the Written Version filed on behalf of the Airlines, the reason for the delay, as pleaded by the Airlines, or cancellation, as alleged by the Complainant, of the flight was stated to be on account of a “snag” in the Aircraft.  However, as observed by both the Fora below, the Airlines did not adduce any evidence in support of the said plea.

        In light of the said factual scenario, we do not find any material to upset the afore-noted concurrent finding of fact returned by both the Fora below that the alleged cancellation or re-scheduling of the flight by over six hours, did cause harassment and mental agony to the Complainant and his wife in arranging for an alternate flight.  Hence, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in our limited Revisional jurisdiction.

        Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.