1.      This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 30.08.2016 of the State Commission in appeal no. 223 of 2015 arising out of the Order dated 02.01.2014 of the District Commission in complaint no. 480 of 2007.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant (the petitioner herein) and for the airlines (the respondents herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 02.01.2014 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 30.08.2016 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.       The matter relates to alleged loss of the complainant’s baggage by the airlines when the complainant travelled from Kolkata to Delhi on 01.01.2003. The District Commission vide its Order dated 02.01.2014 had dismissed the complaint. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 30.08.2016 has dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal the State Commission has  inter alia recorded the following in para 8 of its Order:

8. In the above background I feel that appellant is habitual of making claim against loss of baggage. This cannot be appreciated particularly when he had been counsel of the respondent.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the afore observations are stigmatic and uncalled for. He had made a claim of lost baggage only once before in 1998 and the said claim had been allowed by the airlines. Submission is that if earlier there was deficiency on the part of the airlines and the airlines had itself accepted the same and allowed the claim, it can in no manner be said that the airlines has acquired immunity for all times to come from being sued again for any deficiency if shown or committed by it or that if a claim is again lodged subsequently in the future with regard to another occurrence the claimant would risk being dubbed as “habitual of making claim against loss of baggage”. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant is an advocate which is not an ignoble profession. Submission is that whether or not he had been a counsel of the airlines is totally irrelevant to the facts of the matter and writing that “This cannot be appreciated particularly when he had been counsel of the respondent” is a vapid overreaching observation neither relevant nor called for. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant is still retaining the airlines’ tags of the baggage which had been lost by the airlines even though the tags were required and expected to be collected by the airlines at the time of handing over his baggage. Though in his opinion the evidence in its entirety has not been correctly and properly appreciated by the two fora below but considering that the matter is now quite old and the amount involved is not too much the complainant does not want to pursue this case any further but wants these stigmatic and uncalled for aspersions to be expunged.

5.       Learned counsel for the airlines submits that there can be no objection to expunction of the observations made in para 8 of the State Commission’s impugned Order moreso when the complainant is not wanting to press his case any further.

6.       We agree that the remarks contained in para 8 of the impugned Order ought to stand expunged.

So ordered.

Considering that the complainant does not want to pursue this case any more, nothing else survives in the matter.

Disposed.

7.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.