TAIMNI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was the complainant before the District forum, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant was travelling from kharagpur to New Delhi on 12. 12. 1994 in Neelanchal Express. Upon reaching delhi she found on 13. 12. 1994 that one brief-case containing valuables was missing. Complaint was lodged with the Railway Police and also with Railway authorities and when no reply was forthcoming, a complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, who upon hearing the parties dismissed the complaint taking advantage of Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. On an appeal filed before the Delhi State Commission by the petitioner/ complainant, it was also dismissed by the State Commission, hence this revision Petition. ( 3 ) WE heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties at length. The cause of action, i. e. , loss of briefcase was attributed by the complainant to the lack of electricity in the compartment which was not found to be correct by the State commission and also the fact that under Section 100 of the Indian Railways act, it cannot be said to be falling within the Consumer Protection Act. It is not in dispute as per material on record, i. e. , journey ticket, that the complainant was travelling in ordinary 3rd Class compartment and it is well known position that there is no attendant or in-charge of that compartment, in such a situation the protection of the belongings on a running train have to be taken care of by the passengers themselves. ( 4 ) WE are conscious of the judgment of this Commission wherein we had held that the lost of baggage in a reserved compartment will bring the dispute within the Consumer Protection Act and not to be covered under Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act but this is not the case here. Since this was not a reserved compartment and no attendant is assigned to this type of coach, hence onus in such situation to protect their own personal baggages lied with the passengers. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by both the lower forums. Since this was not a reserved compartment and no attendant is assigned to this type of coach, hence onus in such situation to protect their own personal baggages lied with the passengers. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by both the lower forums. In a case like this either the baggage should have been booked or taken care of by the passenger herself. We see no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by both the lower forums to call for interference under Section 21 (2) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986. ( 5 ) THIS Revision Petition is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.