R.K. Batta, Member— The petitioner has come in revision against concurrent findings of two Fora below holding that the complaint was barred by limitation in view of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act and no application for condonation of delay was filed explaining sufficient cause which prevented the petitioner for not filing the complaint in time. We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person. According to the petitioner. he was travelling along with his wife on 2.12.2005 from Secunderabad to H. Nizamuddin in Rajadhani Express and at about 1 a.m. on 3.12.2005, when he went to the urinal, he found one of the caterers counting the notes near wash basin. Immediately he checked his suitcase, which was locked with a chain and found that the suitcase was open. He noticed that cash of Rs. 8,000 and the ornaments worth Rs.10,000 were missing. He tried to give a complaint in the train, but did not find the conductor or the police. After getting down at H. Nizamudddin, he reported the matter orally to the authorities, who advised him to give the report at Secunderabad Railway Station. Accordingly, he reported the matter at Secunderabad Railway Station on 19.12.2008.