JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The main question which centres around the instant case is as to whether Kuwait Airlines can refuse the boarding pass without any rhyme and reason? 2. The facts germane to the instant case are as follows. On 1.10.2004, Dr. Sushma Kashyap, the complainant, who was arrayed as respondent in these proceedings was going to United States of America by Kuwait Airlines. The deployed Counter Assistant became doubtful about the genuineness of her documents. Consequently, she was made to see Shri V. Srinivasan, Airport Manager. He checked her documents and came to the conclusion that she was not having valid documents and refused to give her boarding pass. The complainant and her husband made several requests to examine the documents properly. They did not permit her to fly. The Embassy of United States of America also highlighted the fact that she was having valid and proper documents. She had to stay in India. She booked a ticket for 05.10.2004 and left for America. She filed a complaint that her ticket in the sum of Rs.44,550/- be refunded and compensation to the tune of Rs.31,000/- be awarded in her favour. 3. The petitioner/Kuwait Airlines Corporation have contested this case tooth and nail. The following averments were made. The Passenger Services Manual mandates the petitioner-airline to refuse carriage of any passenger or passenger baggage for reasons of safety or in the exercise of its reasonable discretion. Carrier determines that the passenger does not appear to be properly documented. Again the vigilance on the part of the petitioner, Airlines cannot in any manner be interpreted as deficiency in service as the petitioner had acted in line with the duty requirements. After due verification done by the US Embassy, the respondent availed the services of the petitioner, Airlines and travelled to United States of America on 5.10.2004. Therefore, the question of refund of ticket price of the respondent does not arise. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that what has been done by the concerned authorities was done within the purview of the set principles, which are applicable to the Airlines. She also tried to spin out a new story by arguing that, as a matter of fact, the complainant wanted to go with her husband and was waiting for him and that is why she could not board the aeroplane in question. This story trotted out at the eleventh hour, sticks in our gizzards because there is no such allegation or evidence. 6. All these arguments have left no impression upon this Commission. The petitioner, Airline has tried in vain to make brick without straw. There must be some cogent and strong reason for refusing to issue the boarding pass. It is also surprising to note that suspicion was never specified. It rather exposes sloth and callousness on the part of administration of Kuwait Airlines. It is clear that above said officers have handled the situation in a very maladroit way. They committed a flagrant error in refusing the boarding pass. 7. We are of the considered view that the compensation demanded by the complainant is already on the lower side. Since the petitioner has already used the ticket on 5.10.2004, therefore, she is not entitled to the price of the ticket. To that extent, the revision stands accepted. However, the amount of compensation does not require any interference. The petition is partly allowed.