Heard learned counsel on behalf of appellant

                     None appears on behalf of respondent.

              2. This appeal has been filed U/S-15 of Consumer protection Act 1986(Herein after called the Act) against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission, Nuapada  in C.D.Case No. 14/2015. The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.

          3   The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that the complainant reached Nuapara Railway station by train from Bhubaneswar on 22-02-2015. After reaching station, she wanted waiting   Hall with his brother who is the present along with petitioner / complainant. As she  had got the A/c 3 tier

  ticket of B 1Coach,  she asked the Station Master, Nuapada for upper class Waiting Hall. The Station Master misbehaved both of them and refused the  upper class Waiting Hall. She submitted that there was no facility of proper light to locate Berth, toilets for passenger in the train. She had lot of those problems when she boarded the train by taking her luggages on that day while travelling in the above specified train and suffers for mental agony and injury. Then he filed the complaint.

4. O.P filed written version stated that the complainant is not a consumer and no ticket was purchased by the complainant to prove his case. The allegation is false. Railway Station has all facilities and there was no misbehavior to the complainant.

5.    After hearing of both parties Learned District Forum pass the following order:

             “The Hon’ble Forum has directed OP No.3 to make immediate steps for the up gradation of the Station and give minimum those facility mentioned above and the OP No.3 and  4 has to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand ) only towards mental agony and harassment of Upper class Passenger and pay Rs. 2,000/- ( Rupees two thousand ) only towards cost of litigation within 3 (three) months from the date of order, otherwise 9 % interest will be penalized to the O.P No.3 and 4 from the date of order.”

 6.              Learned counsel on behalf of appellant submitted that the complainant is not a consumer because he has not purchased ticket to travel from Bhubaneswar to Nuapada.  So due to want of necessary ticket he can not claim as consumer. Apart from this the question does not arise to dispute the allegation that the complainant did not prove as three tires Ac passenger.

7.  Considered the submission, Perused DFR & impugned order.

8.   We have gone through the material on record and DFR. We found no tickets  filed by the complainant and shows that she is about to go Bhubaneswar  and no ticket is filed. .Since purchase of ticket is not proved, plea of her to travel in train on passenger  for consideration is not proved. Therefore, he is not consumer under section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

9.    So Learned District Forum passed the order without considering the case with proper perspective. When she is not a consumer, the complaint is not maintainable. In view of above discussion impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.  No cost.

       Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.