Complainant has filed the present revision petition.

        Complainant and her husband travelled in reserved coach No.S/10, Seat No.9 & 12 in Train No.2716 from New Delhi to Manmad.  They were returning after attending a marriage in Jaipur.  Bag of the complainant, in which ornaments, cash and some documents were kept, allegedly got stolen at about 12.30

2

A.M. at night when the Complainant and her husband were sleeping.  It was alleged that ornaments worth Rs.2,36,000/- were kept in the bag.  They tried to search the bag but could not find it.  They also tried to reach the TTE, TC or GRP at Manmad Station.  As no action was taken by the respondent, Complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakh and cost of litigation.

        District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay Rs.2,36,000/- to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

        Being aggrieved, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum by observing that the goods were in the custody of the petitioner and there was no lapse on the part of the respondents; that under Section 100 of the Railways Act Railways could be burdened with liability only if it was proved that the loss/destruction/damage to the luggage was caused due to the negligence or lapse on the part of the respondents; that in the present case, Complainant had failed to prove that the loss of luggage was due to any lapse or negligence on the part of the respondents; that there was no cogent evidence to prove that the loss was due to lapse on the part of the respondents.

3

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Repeatedly we asked the counsel for the appellant to point out some evidence which could lead us to conclude that the luggage was lost due to any lapse or negligence on the part of the respondents.   Counsel for the appellant failed to show any evidence from which it could be concluded that the loss was due to the lapse or negligence on the part of the respondents.

Moreover, finding recorded by the State Commission is finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

        We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in its impugned order.  Dismissed.