Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. Complainant/respondent traveled in S-4, 3-tier sleeper class of Maurya Express ON 24.1.1993. Respondent filed the complaint alleging that his luggage was stolen somewhere between Dhanbad and Gomah. Attributing deficiency on the part of the petitioner, the complaint was filed seeking direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- on account of loss suffered by him due to theft. District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that it neither had the territorial jurisdiction nor subject-wise jurisdiction. No evidence was recorded by the District Forum. Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission set aside the finding of the District Forum that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction. It was held that the District Forum had the territorial jurisdiction. State Commission, without recording any evidence and without setting aside the finding of the District Forum that it did not have the subject-wise jurisdiction, partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per year to the complaint with costs of Rs.2,500/- within 60 days failing which the penal interest at the rate of 2% would apply till realization. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has erred in decreeing the complaint without setting aside the finding of the District Forum that it did not have the subject-wise jurisdiction. His next contention is that the State Commission should have either recorded the evidence itself or remanded the case to the District Forum to enable the parties to lead evidence in support of pleas raised by them. Counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that the State Commission has not set aside the finding of the District Forum that the District Forum did not have the subject-wise jurisdiction. We agree with both the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The State Commission has clearly erred in allowing the complaint without setting aside the finding of the District Forum that the District Forum did not have the subject-wise jurisdiction to decide the dispute. We also find force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission should have either recorded the evidence itself or remanded the case to the District Forum to enable the parties to prove their case. For the reasons stated above, the order under revision is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh on the point whether the District Forum had the subject-wise jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the parties and, in case, the State Commission comes to the conclusion that the fora under the Consumer Protection Act have the jurisdiction, then to either record the evidence itself or remand the case to the District Forum to enable the parties to lead evidence in support of the pleas raised by them. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 19.5.2011. This complaint was filed in the year 1993. It is unfortunate that the case has no been decided for the last 18 years. State Commission is directed to dispose of the appeal within 30 days from the date of first appearance of the parties. Petitioner is put at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited before the District Forum in pursuance to our order dated 24.9.2010. | 
