JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER ( ORAL) District Consumer Forum Shekh Sarai II, New Delhi holding failure of the petitioner airlines to inform the respondent about cancellation of flight as deficiency in service, vide its order dated 18.07.2007, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- to the respondent towards the extra expenditure incurred by him in the alternative flight and compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. Besides cost of Rs.2000/- was also awarded towards litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission, mainly on two counts, the first plea being that the respondent procured the ticket with confirmed status from the agent and since the agent was informed about the cancellation of flight, it was duty of the agent to inform the complainant respondent about it and the liability, if any, was that of agent and further that amount of ticket was refunded after deducting Rs.600/- and moreover the agent was a necessary party and in the agent absence, the impugned order is illegal. Second plea taken by the petitioner was that as per the terms and conditions of E-ticket, the customer who has booked the flight well in advance of the schedule departure date was expected to confirm the departure time of the flight 72 to 74 hours before the schedule departure time by checking the flight status on the website of the petitioner airlines. 3. The above referred pleas did not find favour with the State Commission. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The State Commission, however, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner airlines invoked provisions of section 14 (1) (hb) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, he Act and directed the petitioner airlines to send cheque of Rs.15000/- each to all the passengers who were to travel on the relevant flight as compensation for mental agony, harassment, mental suffering and physical discomfort. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned order of the State Commission has preferred this revision petition pleading that impugned order of the State Commission holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner is not sustainable as the State Commission has failed to appreciate that there were genuine reasons for cancellation of flight. It is further claimed in the revision petition that State Commission has committed a grave error by invoking the provisions of section 14 (1) (hb) of the Act ignoring the fact that aforesaid provisions is applicable only to the cases where consumer forum is of the view that loss or injury has been suffered by large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently. 5. We have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the petitioner does not press its prayer vis-vis the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal against the amount directed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent complainant. Thus, counsel for the petitioner has confined the arguments only in relation to the order of the State Commission invoking section 14 (1) (hb) of the Act and directing the petitioner to pay Rs.15000/- each to all the consumers booked at the relevant flight which was cancelled. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the section 14 (1) (hb) of the Act and submitted that bare reading of section would show that this section can be invoked by the consumer forum only if the fora concerned is of the opinion that large number of unidentifiable consumers have suffered loss or injury because of deficiency in service by the service provider. Learned counsel has contended that in the instant case admittedly from the flight booking chart of the passengers booked for the flight were identifiable, as such invoking of section 14 (1) (hb) by the State Commission is contrary to the law. It is further submitted that impugned order directing the payment of compensation to all the passengers is otherwise illegal because the petitioner was neither put to notice nor given an opportunity of being heard before invoking section 14 (1) (hb) to pay compensation to the passengers who were not the party before the District Forum or the State Commission. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the petitioner has concealed the correctness of dismissal of appeal, he has nothing to say about the applicability of section 14 (1) (hb) of the Act. 8. In order to properly appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on section 14 (1) (hb) of the Act, which reads thus: o pay such sum as may be determined by it, if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently: Provided that the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be less than five per cent of the value of such defective goods sold or service provided, as the case may be, to such consumers: Provided further that the amount so obtained shall be credited in favour of such person and utilized in such manner as may be prescribed 9. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that this provision can be invoked only when the consumer forum is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by large number of consumers who are not conveniently identifiable. In the instant case, obviously the passengers booked on the flight in question could easily be identified by looking at the flight booking chart. Therefore, in our considered view the State Commission was wrong in invoking section 14 (1) (hb) to direct payment of compensation of Rs.15000/- each to all the passengers booked on the flight despite of the fact that none of them have come forward to claim compensation for any loss suffered by the cancellation of flight. Otherwise also, there was no evidence before the State Commission to conclude that respective passengers had suffered mental trauma or harassment for which the compensation has been granted. It is possible that other passengers might come to know about the cancellation of flight well in advance or other might have checked the flight status on the website of the petitioner company. Further, we found that the petitioner was not put on any notice that the State Commission intended to invoke section 14 (1) (hb) of the Act, in which event the petitioner could have led evidence to show that other passengers did not suffer any harassment or mental trauma etc. Thus, in our view the order of the State Commission invoking section 14 (1) (hb) of the Act is not sustainable being contrary to law. 10. In view of the discussion above, revision petition is partly accepted while upholding the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Forum, we set aside the latter part of the order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.15000/- each as compensation to all the passengers booked on flight in question. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.