ORDER

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member—The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 25.09.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 311/2014 in which order dated 13.08.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Complaint (CC) No. 656/2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the orders passed by the State Commission and dismissing the complaint.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 23.03.2015. Petitioner filed Written Arguments on 16.07.2020 (Petitioner). Written arguments not filed by the Respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

The complainant booked two railway tickets for going to Kolkata alongwith his family. The tickets were from Delhi to Patna and then from Patna to Kolkata. The dates of journey were for 06.11.2011 and 09.11.2011 respectively. The complainant and his family members boarded the train from Patna and while the train was on its way to Kolkata the complainant found that his two suitcases have been stolen. The complainant tried to pull the chain but the train did not stop even on the pulling of the chain. On the next station the complainant reported the matter to GRP but they asked the complainant to report the matter to General Railway Police Station Jhajha, where the luggage was stolen. The complainant reported the matter to police station Jhajha and a case was registered by them. As per complainant, the suit cases were containing some gold, cash and clothes and the total loss amounted to Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant contacted the OP many times. As the OP has not redressed the grievance of the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that the OP be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant i.e. value of the luggage, jewellery and cash etc. and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

4. Vide Order dated 13.08.2014, in the CC No.656/2013, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 13.08.2014 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 25.09.2014 in FA No. 311/2014 has dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order passed by the District Forum.

5. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 25.09.2014 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) The impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts.The order passed by the Fora below is erroneous, illegal, unsustainable, suffers from basic infirmity, perversity and liable to be set aside.

(ii) The information given by the Respondent before the GRP, Jhajha is vauge and misleading on the facts that while the train was on its way to Kolkata, the complainant found that his two suitcases have been stolen; on the next station the complainant reported the mater to GRP but they asked the complainant to report the matter to GRP Station Jhajha, where the luggage was stolen.The complainant reported the matter to GRP Jhajha that in the morning at around 5.00 am when I went to bathroom then all my luggage was intact but when I wake up after the train crossed the Jhajha Station, my two suitcases were missing.From the perusal of the said statements it is not clear that if the t