PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard Counsel appearing on both sides. After hearing the Counsel for the Petitioner for some time, he had restricted the revision only with reference to quantum of compensation which according to him was excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, limited notice was issued on quantum of compensation. The Complainant had filed the complaint with the Train Superintendent which was not produced by the Railway Authorities. The case of the Complainant is that she had ordered vegetarian meal, but when the meal was served to her, there were fish cutlets in the said meal. After eating a part of fish cutlet, she realized that it was non-vegetarian food as a result of which she started vomiting. The affidavit filed by the Complainant and her husband on this aspect had been accepted and believed by the fora below. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the Complainant ordered vegetarian meal and she was served non-vegetarian meal and after eating part of it, she realized that the meal served to her is not vegetarian meal and started vomiting, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded cannot be said to be so grossly disproportionate or excessive so as to interfere with the same in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of this, the revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.