We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The revision petition is filed belatedly after delay of 71 days. -2- 3. We have considered the grounds stated in the delay condonation application. We have also perused the judgments of both the Fora below. The revision petition is filed against the concurrent judgments of the Fora below. The grievances of the respondent was that since he was traveling in the reserved compartment, the petitioner was required to take due care of the luggage, which was being carried by him as passenger. The respondent lost the luggage during the traveling period and therefore gave a complaint to the police. The theft/robbery case remained undetected. The respondent therefore filed the complaint for compensation. 4. The contention of the petitioner was that the respondent failed to prove negligence on the part of the petitioner. It was submitted by the petitioner that the respondent did not prove any unauthorized person was allowed to enter the reserved compartment and that the facility for the safe storage of the luggage was not provided. The passenger is not expected to keep watch to see whether an unauthorized passengers are permitted in the reserved compartment. It is for the railway administration to establish that due care was taken and moreover to prove that the loss had occasioned due to negligence of the complainant himself. We are of the opinion that the concurrent findings of fact need not to be disturbed in the revisional jurisdiction. However, we deem it proper to hold that the order in the -3- present revision is restricted the facts in the present case and may not be taken as precedent in all the cases of similar nature because the amount involved herein is small one. The revision petition is dismissed with no costs.