ORDER Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 165 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants – opposite parties to pay, jointly or severally, to the respondent – complainant sum of Rs. 3,865/-, the ticket charges; Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The amount was directed to be paid within a period of one month (30 days) of the order, failing which the amount was directed to carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had booked five tickets for himself and his family members for journey from Bareilly to Dehradun in Sleeper Class of train No. 2327 (Upasana Express) for 19.06.2010. All the tickets were in waiting list, but by the date of journey, i.e., 19.06.2010, the said tickets were confirmed and the passengers were allotted berth Nos. 1, 19, 26, 16 and 50 in coach Nos. S-1 and S-3. The departure time of the said train from Bareilly was 11:15 a.m. When the complainant reached the railway station, he came to know that the train is running late by about 6½ hours. The train reached Bareilly station at 5:45 p.m. The complainant found that the coaches, in which, he and his family members were allotted berths, were full of passengers of ordinary class and the said persons did not allow the persons holding the reserved tickets to enter into the coaches and they also closed the door of the coaches. On account of the above fact, the complainant and his family members could not board the train and the train departed from the station. The complainant contacted the Station Master, who told that on account of B.Ed. examination, there has been heavy crowd of passengers and he showed his helplessness. He also told that the complainant can get refund of the half amount by getting the tickets cancelled. The complainant went back to his place and came to Haridwar by boarding a bus of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. examination, there has been heavy crowd of passengers and he showed his helplessness. He also told that the complainant can get refund of the half amount by getting the tickets cancelled. The complainant went back to his place and came to Haridwar by boarding a bus of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. 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 as per the T.T.E. on duty in reserved coaches, no unauthorised passenger travelled in coach Nos. S-1 and S-3 of Upasana Express on 19.06.2010; that the complainant did not lodge any complaint with the Station Master; that the complainant did not take any action for refund of the fare charges; that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the cases of compensation pertaining to Railway because such disputes are to be decided by Railway Claims Tribunal and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 22.08.2012 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. The main grievance of the complainant is that he was holding reserved tickets, but he and his family members were not allowed to enter into the coaches in which they had reserved berths for them. The complainant has specifically pleaded that on account of B.Ed. examination, there was numerous increase in the number of passengers. Before the District Forum, the complainant has filed the newspaper in which news was published to the effect that in the B.Ed. entrance examination, 25000 candidates participated and at every examination centre, there was heavy crowd of candidates. 7. The railway authorities have taken the stand that the T.T.E. on duty has informed that no unauthorised passenger was travelling in the reserved coaches on the said date. The railway authorities have not filed the affidavit of the said T.T.E. in support of his alleged contention. They have also not filed the affidavit of the Station Master of Bareilly Railway Station. The railway authorities have not filed the affidavit of the said T.T.E. in support of his alleged contention. They have also not filed the affidavit of the Station Master of Bareilly Railway Station. When the complainant was having reserved berths for himself and his family members, there was no occasion for him to miss the train, more so, when he had reached the railway station well before time and on the said date, the train was late by about 6½ hours, which fact has not been denied or disputed by the railway authorities. The railway authorities have pleaded that the complainant should have applied for refund of the fare charges and in that event, he would have been given refund of half of the amount. When there was no fault on the part of the complainant, there was no justification on the part of the railway authorities to offer the refund of only half of the amount and he was entitled to the refund of entire fare charges. 8. The District Forum has considered this aspect of the matter in an elaborate manner and has returned a correct finding and has rightly held the railway authorities are deficient in service and rightly went on to allow the consumer complaint by the order impugned. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the cases of compensation pertaining to Railway because such disputes are to be decided by Railway Claims Tribunal and fall under Section 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. We do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, as is provided under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Even otherwise, Section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 says that the Tribunal will deal with compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway. Even otherwise, Section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 says that the Tribunal will deal with compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway. The said provision does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the instant case, the complainant and his family members could not board the train on account of deficiency in service on the part of the railway authorities, as is held above and there was no fault on their part. 10. So far as the quantum is concerned, the District Forum was perfectly justified in directing the appellants to pay the amount of Rs. 3,865/- to the respondent. So far as the interest awarded @9% p.a. is concerned, we are of the view that the same is on the higher side and in our considered view, interest @7% p.a. would be just and proper. Since the complainant has been awarded interest, there is no question of separate compensation for mental agony and hence the award of Rs. 10,000/- passed by the District Forum towards mental agony, is liable to be set aside. The litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum are also on the higher side and in our opinion, the same need to be reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. This way, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned is liable to be modified as such. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 22.08.2012 of the District Forum is modified and the appellants are directed to pay sum of Rs. 3,865/- to the respondent together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. Costs of the appeal made easy.