JUDGMENT Oral: Onkar Chand Thakur, Presiding Member: Deriving authority from Section 22-D, read with Section 29 A and 2-1 (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, amended upto 2002, the President of State Commission having retired on 19.4.2005 and no one having joined as such till today, and also in exercise of power conferred upon us, as a Bench constituted under section 16(1B) of the said Act, vide orders dated 18.4.2004, we hereby proceed to decide this appeal on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellants against the impugned order of Ld. Distt. Forum, Shimla dated 11.8.2003, whereby they have been directed to pay to the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 2877/- as balance fare with 12 % interest from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment is made, damages to the tune of Rs. 3000/- as Litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- for deficiency of service. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Shri Hans Raj Thakur was to avail LTC during the year 2000. Accordingly, he purchased the tickets for journey from Kalka to Delhi, Delhi to coimbtore. Coimbtore to Rameshwaram, and from Trivandrum to Secunderabad. It is further averred that amongst other railway journey the complainant wanted to purchase one ticket from Cohin to Secunderabad for backward journey and filled in a form for reservation. The clerk at the Railway Counter at Shimla advised him to fill in the form from Trivendrum to Secunderabad and not from Cohin to Secunderabad as there was no train available from Cochin and the train to Secunderabad was directly available from Trivendrum. Accordingly, the complainant filled in the form and purchased ticket from Trivendrum to Secunderabad bearing No. 18966285 PNR No. 430-4352700 for train No. 7029 and journey to commence on 22.2.2000. On this date when the complainant and his family reached Trivendrum Railway station to board and said train to Secunderabad, he was told by the railway officials that there is no such train from Trivendrum to Secunderabad and train No. 7029 does not even touch Railway Station Trivendrum. Therefore, he approached for cancellation of the ticket and refund of total cricket money. But the officials agreed to give him only 50% of the refund i.e. Rs 2876/-. The complainant and his family had to suffer a lot and engaged expensive mode of conveyance costing Rs. 650/-. Therefore, he approached for cancellation of the ticket and refund of total cricket money. But the officials agreed to give him only 50% of the refund i.e. Rs 2876/-. The complainant and his family had to suffer a lot and engaged expensive mode of conveyance costing Rs. 650/-. Against this negligence and consequent deficiency in service on the part of railway officials, this complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. Distt. Forum, Shimla which resulted in the impugned order giving rise to this appeals. 4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. Amongst other pleas, the Id. Counsel for the Appellants mainly stressed on the provisions of section 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which say that all cases of refund of fare Lie before the Tribunal. This aspect has been discussed by the Ld. Forum below in para 6 of the order, wherein the Ld. Forum has considered the authority cited by the appellant in the case of Smt. Kalawati and others V/S M/S United Vaish Coop. Thrift and Credit decided on 26.9.2001 and held that in the light of latest law laid down by the Honble National Commission in the case of Union of India V/S Deobrath Chattopadhya, 2002 CTU 92 (CP-NCDRC), the consumer fora are fully competent to take up cases of deficiency of service on the part of Railway officials, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are further supported by another decision of the Honble National Commission in Revision Petition (NC) of 1943 of 2003, titled as Shri Purshottam Kajriwal V/S Union of India. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the case in hand is fully covered by the above cited authorities on the point and there is no force in the arguments of the Id. Counsel for the Appellants in this behalf and hence rejected. 6. On the other hand that boarding point was Cochin Harbour and not Trivendrum, there is no cogent reply was to why the railway official at the railway counter at Shimla accepted the Form. Counsel for the Appellants in this behalf and hence rejected. 6. On the other hand that boarding point was Cochin Harbour and not Trivendrum, there is no cogent reply was to why the railway official at the railway counter at Shimla accepted the Form. A photo copy of the reservation slip seeking ticket from Trivendrum to Secunderabad is available there in the record as Annexure R-l. Besides causing lot of harassment and inconvenience to the complainant, by not refunding the total amount of the ticket for the fault of its own official, amounts to a clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the railways. 7. In the light of above discussion, we do not find any sound reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. Forum below and uphold the impugned order. Therefore, we uphold the direction to refund the balance fare of Rs. 2877/-. However, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the rate of interest is reduced from 12 % to 6 % payable from the date of filling the complaint till actual payment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, litigation cost is enhanced from Rs. 1000/-to Rs. 2000/- and order with regard to damages of Rs. 3000/- is set aside. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of.