O R D E R (ORAL) Challenge in this Revision Petition, by Spicejet Limited, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 5.8.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.741/2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming the finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – VII, New Delhi (for short “the District Forum”), in its order dated 12.7.2012 in Complaint No.DF.VII/138/08/7004/05, to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not loading the baggage of at least 7 passengers, on their trip to Vaishno Devi and in the process caused harassment and mental agony to them, has reduced the rate of interest on the total amount of ₹69,556/- as awarded, from 6% per month to 12% per annum. In the first place, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent, alleging harassment and mental agony on the afore-noted point, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant the following amounts : i) ₹40,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony; ii) ₹26,556/- as hotel expenses; iii) ₹3,000/- as misc. expenses. As noted above, the District Forum had also awarded interest at the afore-stated rate on the aforesaid amounts. On 21.2.2017, when the Petitioner came up for motion hearing, the Senior Manager Legal was directed to furnish information on the following points : Whether the Respondent/Complainant was carrying excess baggage? If so, whether he was charged for the same and at what rate? Whether any other passenger was carrying excess baggage and was charged for it? and
(iv) Whether any announcement was made in the aircraft for not having loaded the luggage in question? The said information was to be furnished within four weeks from the date of the said order but unfortunately, even till this date, the requisite affidavit has not been filed. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that despite best efforts, he has not been able to obtain information on the afore-noted points. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel and regard being had to the fact that both the Forums below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that there was no reason for not loading the entire baggage of the passengers, who had been booked for travel from Delhi to Jammu, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference in the limited jurisdiction conferred on this Commission. We may note that the Revision Petition is also barred by limitation by 48 days, for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. | 
