ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 192 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants – opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 16,896/- to the respondent – complainant within a period of 30 days, failing which the amount was directed to carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. The District Forum has also directed the appellants to pay sum ofRs. 4,000/- to the respondent towards mental agony and litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 02.06.2010, the complainant had booked a seat with Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited, Dehradun for Chardham Yatra under Tour No. 7 (Rishikesh-YamunotriGangotri-Gaumukh-Rishikesh). The tour was to be organized from 06.06.2010 to 11.06.2010. In the night of 07.06.2010, the touring party reached the guest house of Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited at Badkot for night stay. In the said guest house, the light was not available and the facility of generator was provided only till dinner and thereafter the generator was stopped. In the night of 07/08.06.2010 at about 2:30 a.m., a loud noise came in the room, on account whereof, the complainant and other persons staying in the room woke up and on putting the torch on, they found that the door of the room was open. All the persons staying in the room checked their belongings. The complainant found that his suitcase carrying clothes and other items, key of his car and remote control, was missing from the room and was stolen. The complainant ran towards reception by shouting thieve and found that there was no staff of the guest house at the reception. The complainant and other persons along with tour guide Sh. Kamal Rawat went to the police station in the night at 3:00 a.m. for lodging the FIR, but on account of non-availability of any police official, the report could not be lodged. In the morning at 7:00 a.m., the complainant again went to the police station and lodged the FIR. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties for reimbursement of his loss, but to no avail. In the morning at 7:00 a.m., the complainant again went to the police station and lodged the FIR. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties for reimbursement of his loss, but to no avail. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The appellants filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the generator was running the whole night; that if there would have been any noise, the same would have also been noticed/heard by the officials/watchman of the guest house; that the complainant came at the reception at 3:00 a.m. and told that theft has taken place in his room; that the complainant refused to lodge the FIR and that the pilgrims have to take care of their belongings. It was further pleaded that there has not been any deficiency in service on their part and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 27.05.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent – complainant in person and have also perused the record. 6. It is very strange on the part of the appellants to say that the pilgrims should themselves take care of their belongings and the appellants are not responsible for the same. The appellants have received the consideration amount from the complainant and the tour was organized by them. The complainant along with other pilgrims was staying in the guest house of the Nigam and it was the responsibility of the appellants to take care of his belongings and also to observe that no untoward incident should take place and the appellants can not escape from their liability by saying that the pilgrims were expected to take care of their belongings and it was not the responsibility of the appellants. 7. So far as the genuineness of theft is concerned, there is ample evidence on record having been produced by the complainant to prove that his suitcase was stolen in the night during the stay at the guest house of the Nigam and he has later on genuinely reduced his claim amount from Rs. 20,265/- to Rs. 16,896/-. 7. So far as the genuineness of theft is concerned, there is ample evidence on record having been produced by the complainant to prove that his suitcase was stolen in the night during the stay at the guest house of the Nigam and he has later on genuinely reduced his claim amount from Rs. 20,265/- to Rs. 16,896/-. The complainant has lodged the FIR with the police on 08.06.2010. He has also lodged complaint with the Chairman and Managing Director of the Nigam regarding the incident of theft. It is also important to mention here that Sh. Khajan Singh Rawat has given his statement to the Manager of the guest house, wherein he has stated that in the night at 12:00 a.m., he stopped the generator and went to sleep. He has also stated that the door of the main gate was closed, but was not locked. This shows the total carelessness and negligence on the part of the official of the guest house. The appellants have not adduced any evidence to show that the claim of the complainant is false and that no incident of theft actually took place. To the contrary, as stated above, there is voluminous evidence on record, as has been discussed by the District Forum, that the incident of theft is genuine. 8. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed 9. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.