Complainant/respondent was travelling from Bhopal to Saharanpur in Chattisgarh Express with four of her family members in Coach No.S-1. While the passengers were sleeping, Coach S-1 caught
-2- a fire as a result of which there was chaos. Respondent and her family members were saved but their luggage left behind which was tied with chains was burnt in the fire. Police report was lodged with PS GRP on the same day. Claim was lodged with the petitioner which was not accepted. Being aggrieved, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent towards damaged goods and Rs.5,000/- towards mental harassment and litigation expenses within one month, failing which the awarded amount was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing of the order till realization. Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner as well as the respondent/complainant filed cross appeals before State Commission. Petitioner filed the appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned order whereas complainant filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. State Commission by the impugned order dismissed both the appeals. State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by observing thus:
-3- “The complainant had immediately in her report to the police given the list of articles that was contained in the luggage and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no evidence about the articles being carried in luggage. She has mentioned in the list that they were going to attend a wedding and articles pertaining to the wedding were there in the luggage viz. coat, trousers, two jackets, seven sarees, five pieces of lehanga chunni, two jeans, four T shirts, four kadas (Bangles) gold chain, gold rink, anklets made of silver of the value of Rs.25,000/- clothes for bridegroom and the bride and other articles such as blankets, bed sheets, sweaters and in the other bag articles for eating. From the description of the loss occasioned to the complainant sum of Rs.50,000/- appears to be reasonable. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. The finding recorded by the fora below is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. We do not find any such material irregularity or
-4- illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. | 
