Delay of 68 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

          Complainant/respondent, who is a retired Additional Commissioner of Police, booked two tickets for himself and his wife to travel to Dehradun in Train No.2475 – Jammu Tavi Train.  He was allotted Coach No.A-1, Berth No.44-45 and PNR No. of the ticket was 00691903.  He boarded the train on 20.7.2005 for Dehradun at 9 PM carrying two suitcases and a handbag.  In the morning, they found that their bags were missing.  Respondent informed the attendant about the incident and lodged police complaint at Delhi Railway Station.  According to the respondent, some unauthorized persons had entered in the reserved compartment.  Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the respondent to compensate him with Rs.35,000/- for the loss of luggage, Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs. 

Notice issued by the District Forum to the petitioner was received back with postal remarks “refused”.  On receipt of the postal report, petitioner was deemed to have been served and was proceeded ex parte.  District Forum, taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct as they had not been rebutted, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.35,000/- for the stolen luggage with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the incident i.e., 21.7.2005, along with costs of Rs.1,500/-.

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal.  Taking the statement of the respondent that anti-social elements had entered the coach and stole the baggage of the respondent to be correct, held the petitioner to be guilty of deficiency in service. 

The petitioner did not controvert the facts stated in the complaint or the statement made by the respondent/complainant.  As there was no rebuttal to the facts stated in the complaint, District Forum was within legal bounds to accept the facts stated in the complaint and the affidavit filed by the respondent.

We agree with the view taken by the fora below that, in the absence of any rebuttal, the facts stated in the complaint, which were duly supported by the affidavit filed by the respondent, could be taken to be correct on the basis of which the petitioner could be directed to compensate the respondent for the loss suffered by him.

No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.