G.D. Sharma, J. 1. Order dated 6.1.2003 passed by the learned Divisional Consumer Protection Forum Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forum) has been challenged in this appeal by the appellant, whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- as special damages to Miss Rajpreet Bajwa for deficiency in service provided to her at Chennai airport on 2.1.2000, as she was not provided flight in time to reach Delhi and take her scheduled exam of BCA Mathematics. Besides that respondent No. l, his wife and two daughters, including Miss Rajpreet, were awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1000/- each for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by them at Chennai airport on 3.1.2000. Litigation expenses have also been awarded in the amount of Rs. 10000/-. 2. The case of respondent No. 1 was that in the month of October 1999 he purchased four tickets for his family members for travelling in the flight of the appellant on 25.12.1999 from Jammu to Portblair and back. The journey was conclude on those tickets at Jammu on 2.1.2000. However, one member, Miss Rajpreet had to start the journey from Delhi upto Portblair which was to terminate at Delhi. 3. Respondent No. 1's case before the Forum was that due to bad weather their flight could not land at New Delhi on the scheduled date and was, therefore, diverted back to Chennai. They were told that they would be taken to Delhi on the next date. However, when they reached Chennai airport at 9.45 AM on 3.1.2000 they found that the flight had left at 7A.M. Consequently they were accommodated in another flight which left Chennai at 6.15 P.M. and reached New Delhi at 8.15 P.M. with the result, her daughter, Miss Rajpreet, missed the exam. Hence the complaint. 4. Learned Forum after appraisal of evidence has held that the flight from Chennai to Delhi took up on the scheduled time on 2.1.2000 but because of non-visibility at Delhi airport it was directed back to Chennai and boarding and lodging facilities were provided to the passengers there. They were adjusted in flight No.9W 824 from Chennai to Delhi on 3.1.2000 which landed at Delhi at 8.15. PM because it was a delayed flight. Their onward journey, excluding Miss Rajpreet, started through luxury coach provided by the appellant but the journey was not comfortable. They were adjusted in flight No.9W 824 from Chennai to Delhi on 3.1.2000 which landed at Delhi at 8.15. PM because it was a delayed flight. Their onward journey, excluding Miss Rajpreet, started through luxury coach provided by the appellant but the journey was not comfortable. The allegation of respondent No. l that they had discontinued the journey at Khanna enroute has been held not proved. However, the learned Forum allowed the complaint with respect to the claim of Miss Rajpreet that the appellant mis-informed them about the exact time of departure of flight No. 9W 822. They were informed at 9 A.M. on 3.1.2000 to reach the airport for taking flight to Delhi. But when they reached there they found that the flight 9W-822 had already left, with the result Miss Rajpreet could not make it in time to at Delhi to take the exam. The appellant did not pay any heed to the requests of respondent No. 1 to make arrangement for the flight at least for Miss Rajpreet, so that she could take exam at Delhi in time. 5. The order has been challenged, inter alia, on the following grounds:- 1- Learned Forum has erred in arriving at the conclusion that there was deficiency in service qua Miss Rajpreet as she had no cause of action in her favour because she undertook journey from Delhi to Portblair and back; 2- The learned Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence; 3- Complicated questions of facts and law were involved in the case which could not be decided under the provisions of the C.P. Act; 4- Delay has not been caused intentionally but because of bad weather over which the appellant had no control and in view of the settled law the appellant could not be held liable. Heard the arguments. 6. While reiterating the grounds of appeal learned counsel has laid stress on the provisions of Sec. 9 of the Act by stating that this Act has application within the territory of J&K State only and Miss Rajpreet had resumed journey from Delhi so no cause of action had arisen in her favour. On facts he has stated that there is no evidence on record to prove that respondent No. 1 was given 9 AM time to reach Chennai airport on 3.1.2000. On facts he has stated that there is no evidence on record to prove that respondent No. 1 was given 9 AM time to reach Chennai airport on 3.1.2000. In support of this contention he has referred to page 3 of the written version wherein under heading VIII the defence taken by the appellant is that there is not an iota of evidence led by respondent No. l to prove his assertion that he alongwith his family members had reached the airport in time. Rather he was negligent and has carved out a case to cover his negligence by attributing negligence to the appellant. Under sub-head (d) on page 4 of the written version it is specifically pleaded that respondent No. 1 was offered next available flight but because of his negligent act he could not avail it. He himself was responsible for the delay in boarding flight in time and cannot claim premium for his own mistake. He has referred to the testimony of appellant's witness namely, Sh. S. Ganana Puruparan (Manager legal Jet Airway) as well as the "service chart" produced by him regarding the flight in question. The chart recites that the flight 9W-822 on 3.1.2000 had taken off at 9.40 AM. The complainant and his family members were endorsed for that flight (9W 822) on 3.1.2000 at 7 AM but it was delayed upto 10 AM and by that time respondent No. l and his family members did not report and the flight took off with 141 passengers. There was no endorsement of their travel on the tickets because they `had not reported in time. Photo copy of the flight chart which he has produced, as referred to above, is computer generated list which is prepared immediately after "check in" is completed and the doors are closed of the craft. Technically it is called "Passenger Manifest List" and not the booking list. He has specifically stated that respondent No.1 and his family members had the endorsement of their tickets for the flight to be taken off at 7 AM On 3.1.2000 and they were duly informed but they failed to turn up in time. The names of those passengers only are mentioned in the passenger manifest list who are present during the "checking in" time. Respondent No. l and his family members were accommodated in the evening flight on 3.1.2000 and they had availed the opportunity. The names of those passengers only are mentioned in the passenger manifest list who are present during the "checking in" time. Respondent No. l and his family members were accommodated in the evening flight on 3.1.2000 and they had availed the opportunity. After reaching Delhi flights were cancelled on 4th, 5lh and 6th of January 2000 and respondent No. l and his family members were provided luxury coach to be taken to Jammu. That as against this evidence of cogent and convincing nature there is no evidence in rebuttal to prove the fact that respondent No. l and his family members were given specific time at 9 AM on 3.1.2000. Rather, the case of respondent No. l fails on the admission being made by him that he had reached airport Chennai at 9.45 AM on that date when the official record of the appellant, which is credible and trustworthy, shows that ending period of the flight was 9.40 AM. It can be possible that actually the flight might have taken off at 10 AM. 7. In rebuttal Mr. Sharma has contended that in para 9 of the affidavit of respondent No. 1 he has deposed that officials of the appellant had informed him at 9 AM, when he was sitting in the hotel alongwith his family, which accommodation was provided by the appellant, to reach airport immediately as they had been booked in flight 9W 822 which was the scheduled flight from Chennai to Delhi at 9.45 AM. That he and his family members had arrived at the airport at 9.45 AM and were shocked to learn that scheduled time of the flight was 7 AM and it had already left for Delhi. This deposition has been made in accordance with the averments made at page No. 4 of the complaint under heading (f) which has not been specifically rebutted. No time has been mentioned as to when respondent No. 1 alongwith his family members had reached at the airport. This evasive answer proves the case of respondent No. l and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. No time has been mentioned as to when respondent No. 1 alongwith his family members had reached at the airport. This evasive answer proves the case of respondent No. l and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. He has referred to AIR 1964 SC 538 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "evasive or vague denial of facts in the written statement can be taken to have been admitted." He has also contended that the evidence led by the appellant was in contradiction to the plea taken in the written version because the plea of negligence was not taken and in order to fill up the gap evidence of the witness alongwith "Passenger Manifest List" has been produced which has no value for the decision of the case. In support of his contention he has referred the decided case titled Pratap N. Kothari v. John Braganza, 1999(2) CCC 138(SC). Similarly he has also referred to AIR 1968 SC 1083 , 1(1992) CPJ 183(NC), 1999(3) CCC 302 (AP) and AIR 1968 SC 1413 . 8. We have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Learned Forum has rightly held that even Miss Rajpreet had cause of action to file the complaint in the Forum because part of cause of action had arisen in Jammu as her ticket too was purchased at Jammu. However, we do not agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that his client and his family members were informed at 9 AM to take flight which had to take off at 9.45 AM. There is documentary proof in the form of "passenger manifest list", maintained by the appellant in due course of business which shows that the scheduled flight time to take off was at 7 AM but it had ended at 9.40 AM. This is an admitted fact that the "check in" time ends before 30 minutes from taking off the flight. According to the admission of respondent No. 1 he had reached airport at 9.45 AM and this admission has itself demolished his case. This is an admitted fact that the "check in" time ends before 30 minutes from taking off the flight. According to the admission of respondent No. 1 he had reached airport at 9.45 AM and this admission has itself demolished his case. In the proceedings before the Consumer Fora mere preponderance of possibility suggests that a fact is said to be proved when the Forum either believes that it exists or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The Fora created under the Act are not fettered or bound by the technical rules contained in the Evidence Act. What is required is that they must conduct themselves in accordance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. They should follow the procedure laid down under sec. 11 of the Act. Applying the above stated yardstick to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant for the delay of flight at the airport Chennai, but on the contrary, respondent No. 1 himself and his family members were late in reaching airport. 9. In this view of the matter, we find that the order under appeal suffers from factual and legal infirmities and requires to be set aside. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. In the circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Record of the D.F. be returned at once and appeal is consigned to records.