ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 51 of 2012. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants – opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 760/- to the respondent – complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of the order, failing which the respondent was held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above amount 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 got a railway ticket booked for himself under Tatkal quota for 23.02.2012 in train No. 12056 from Dehradun to New Delhi through an agent. At the time of booking the ticket, the Permanent Account Number (PAN Number) of the complainant was mentioned. The complainant was allotted confirmed seat No. 5 in coach No. C4. During the course of journey, the opposite party No. 3 – T.T.E. checked the tickets of the passengers. The complainant showed his ticket to the T.T.E. and the photocopy of his PAN card and driving licence and identity card issued by the Uttarakhand Information Commission, but the opposite party No. 3 insisted for original PAN card of the complainant. The complainant told that his original PAN card is with his Chartered Accountant. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 3 wanted to impose penalty of Rs. 760/- on the complainant, which the complainant paid to him. On the same date, the complainant returned to Dehradun by A.C. Special train and the said ticket was also got booked by the complainant through the same agent and the complainant was allotted berth No. 42 in coach No. A2 and his PAN card details were given at the time of booking of the said ticket. During the return journey, the T.T.E. did not find anything wrong when the complainant showed him the photocopy of his PAN card. Aggrieved by the conduct of the opposite party No. 3, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. During the return journey, the T.T.E. did not find anything wrong when the complainant showed him the photocopy of his PAN card. Aggrieved by the conduct of the opposite party No. 3, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The appellant No. 3 – opposite party No. 3 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that at the time of checking the tickets by him, the complainant gave his introduction as State Information Commissioner; that he asked the complainant to show his original PAN card; that on account of violation of rules and regulations of Indian Railway, sum of Rs. 760/- was charged from the complainant; that as per Rule 4D of the Indian Railway, it is necessary to show the original ID mentioned at the time of booking the ticket and that there is no deficiency in service in the present case. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 16.11.2012 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had booked his ticket from Dehradun to New Delhi for 23.02.2012 in train No. 12056 through internet and at the time of booking of the said ticket, the Permanent Account Number of the complainant was mentioned. The copy of the said ticket is on record (Paper No. 14). In the said electronic reservation slip, it has clearly been mentioned that, “this ticket will only be valid with an ID proof in original provided at the time of booking by the passenger (s). The copy of the said ticket is on record (Paper No. 14). In the said electronic reservation slip, it has clearly been mentioned that, “this ticket will only be valid with an ID proof in original provided at the time of booking by the passenger (s). If found travelling without ID proof, passenger (s) will be treated as without ticket and charged as per extant Railway rules.” There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that during the course of the journey, the complainant did not show his original PAN card to the T.T.E. and showed only the photocopy of the same, as has been averred by the complainant in para 1 of the consumer complaint, but the complainant showed his driving licence and also his identity card issued by the Uttarakhand Information Commission, which very well establishes the identity of the complainant and it can not be said that the complainant was not the person who had booked the said ticket. The above rule has been made by the Indian Railway only to protect misuse / unauthorise use of the railway tickets and in the present case, it can not be said that the complainant by any stretch of imagination was making any unauthorise use of the railway ticket issued in his favour. This apart, in the said ticket, it has also been mentioned that valid identity card is to be presented by the passenger during journey and it has also been provided that the driving licence can also be presented. The complainant has specifically averred, as is stated above, that he presented his driving licence as well as his identity card issued by the Uttarakhand Information Commission to the concerned T.T.E., which fact has also not been denied by the T.T.E. Thus, when for any unavoidable reason or whatsoever may be, the complainant was unable to produce his original PAN card to the T.T.E., the complainant should not have been charged or being treated as travelling without ticket, more so in view of the fact that the complainant had shown his driving licence and also his identity card and the identity of the complainant was very well established. 7. A Circular bearing Commercial Circular No. 59 of 2011 has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), New Delhi on 11.11.2011 vide letter No. 2011/TG-I/20/P/Tatkal regarding amendment in Tatkal scheme (Paper Nos. 7. A Circular bearing Commercial Circular No. 59 of 2011 has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), New Delhi on 11.11.2011 vide letter No. 2011/TG-I/20/P/Tatkal regarding amendment in Tatkal scheme (Paper Nos. 15 to 16) and clause No. (iv)(d) of the said Circular states that, “during the journey, the passenger, whose identity card number has been indicated on the ticket, will have to produce original proof of identity indicated on the ticket, failing which all the passengers booked on the ticket shall be treated as travelling without ticket and charged accordingly. Indication will come on the ticket regarding carrying the same original proof of identity during the journey, as indicated on the ticket.” 8. The above-mentioned condition has not been attached to the booked ticket made available to the complainant. Even otherwise, as is stated above, when the identity of the complainant was duly established, he could not have been charged by the T.T.E. The complainant has also stated in the consumer complaint that on the same date, he returned to Dehradun by A.C. Special train and the said ticket was also got booked by the complainant through the same agent and the complainant was allotted berth No. 42 in coach No. A2 and his PAN card details were given at the time of booking of the said ticket and that during the course of journey, the T.T.E. did not find anything wrong when the complainant showed him the photocopy of his PAN card. Although the concerned T.T.E. Sh. Dilip Singh has denied the said averment in his affidavit dated 19.02.2012 filed before the District Forum (Paper Nos. 29 to 30), but we need not enter into that controversy and the fact remains that when the complainant had showed his driving licence and identity card issued by the Uttarakhand Information Commission and his identity was duly established, there was no occasion for the T.T.E. to charge the complainant as being travelling without ticket. 9. In view of the above discussion, the District Forum was justified in holding that there has been deficiency in service in the present case and the District Forum has rightly allowed the consumer complaint. So far as the quantum is concerned, the District Forum has rightly directed for refund of Rs. 760/-. However, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs. So far as the quantum is concerned, the District Forum has rightly directed for refund of Rs. 760/-. However, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the District Forum is quite excessive and in our considered opinion, the same need to be reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. The litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum are justified and can not be said to be on the higher side. Since the complainant has been awarded compensation for mental agony, there is no question of awarding any interest, as both compensation for mental agony and interest can not be awarded together. Therefore, the direction regarding payment of interest @9% p.a. passed by the District Forum need to be quashed. This way, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is to be modified as such. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 16.11.2012 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellants are directed to refund sum of Rs. 760/- to the respondent and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent together with litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum. The direction regarding payment of interest @9% p.a. is hereby quashed. Costs of the appeal made easy.