The National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is limited to instances of material irregularity by lower fora, and cannot interfere with concurrent factual findings.

1. Challenge in this Revision Petition, under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Petitioner Airlines, is to the Order dated 25.1.2018, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 815/2017. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners, while affirming the direction given by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (for short "the District Forum") vide Order dated 5.9.2017 passed in Complaint No. 16/11 to the Petitioner Airlines to pay a sum of Rs.2,03,785 towards cost of articles lost during the course of travel but reduced the Compensation and cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum to Rs.25,000 and Rs.5,000 respectively.

2. Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition, as culled out from the Complaint, are that the Complainant along with his family members had purchased tickets from Air India (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner Airlines') to travel from Nagpur to Goa via Mumbai for attending a wedding ceremony. After examining 16 bags of the Complainant and his family members, boarding passes were issued, however, upon reaching the destined location, only 15 bags were received by the Complainant. Unfortunately, one bag had been misplaced. Written complaint was lodged at the Airport and it was assured by the Petitioner Airlines that after due investigation the bag will be recovered soon. However, the missing bag could not be recovered and the Complainant was offered compensation to the tune of Rs.3,600 at the rate of Rs.450 per kg in accordance with provisions of Citizens Charter / Contract of Carriage R.1972 on Domestic Travel & Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (Ministry of Civil Aviation). Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Airlines, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.2,03,785 along with Rs.1,00,000 towards mental agony and litigation expense.

3. Upon notice, the Complaint was contested by the Petitioner Airlines on the ground that the Complainant had not declared value of the articles in accordance with the provisions of Citizens Charter / Contract of Carriage Rule, 1972 on Domestic Travel & Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (Ministry of Civil Aviation), wherein the valuable articles such as currency, precious metals, jewelry, negotiable instruments, securities, personal identification documents and other items of value are advised to be best carried with the guests in the cabin.

4. On appraisal of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum allowed the Complaint holding that the Petitioner Airlines is liable for deficiency in service in taking proper care of the baggage of the Complainant, which was lost during the course of travel due to which the Complainant has to suffer a loss of articles worth Rs.2,03,785. The compensation of Rs.3,600 as offered by the Petitioner Airlines deemed insufficient as the articles kept in the luggage were evidently costly and directed the Petitioner Airlines to pay a sum of Rs.2,03,785 towards costs of articles along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000 and cost of litigation Rs.10,000.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner Airlines preferred an Appeal before the State Commission on the ground that they had duly complied with the provisions of Citizens Charter / Contract of Carriage R.1972 on Domestic Travel & Bureau of Civil Aviation Secur