JUDGMENT : N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J. 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the J&K State Consumer Protection Commission, Srinagar (hereafter referred to as the “Commission”) in Application No. 061/2007 on 04-10-2007, dismissing the appeal filed by the writ petitioners against the order dated 23-07-2007 passed by the learned Divisional Consumer Protection Forum, Srinagar (hereafter referred to as the “Consumer Forum”) on the ground of delay. 2. It has been submitted by Mr. Dar, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners that the Commission has taken a hyper technical view of the matter by rejecting the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners before the Commission. It has been submitted that Consumer Forum, Srinagar had passed the award against the writ petitioners on 23-07-2007, which was sought to be challenged before the Commission. The appeal was filed before the Commission on 26-09-2007 after about delay of 33 days and the period of limitation for filing the writ petition was 30 days. 3. It has been submitted that though the appeal was filed on 26-09-2007 and the same was admitted by the Commission and in fact it also stayed the award passed by the Consumer Forum. However, at the time of filing memo of appeal, it was not accompanied by a certificate issued by the President, Divisional Consumers Protection Forum to the effect that the appellant had deposited 25% of the awarded amount with the Consumer Forum payable under the order. The said amount, however, was deposited on 01-10-2007, though it was directed by the Commission to be deposited on 29-09-2007. Unfortunately, the Commission, merely because of delay of 33 days in submitting the said 25% of the awarded amount, held that the appeal is barred by delay. It was observed by the Commission that it is a statutory requirement as provided under Section 13 Second Proviso of the J&K Consumer Protection Act. 1987 and as such the petitioners did not comply with the statutory requirements and since there was also a delay of 33 days, the delay could not be condoned. Accordingly, the Commission rejected the memo of appeal. 1987 and as such the petitioners did not comply with the statutory requirements and since there was also a delay of 33 days, the delay could not be condoned. Accordingly, the Commission rejected the memo of appeal. Section 13 reads as follows: “Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Divisional Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided further that no appeal shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the President Divisional Forum to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him 25% of the amounts payable under the order.” 4. It has been submitted that the writ petitioners were entitled to challenge the order of the Consumer Forum and since the appeal filed before the Consumer Forum was rejected on technical grounds, the petitioner will suffer great injustice. 5. It has been submitted that the Consumer Forum had given a finding without adequate material by holding that the writ petitioners had engaged in unfair trade practice. It was held by the Consumer Forum that a mischief was played by the writ petitioners as the ticket purchased by the respondents was of low economy and they could easily resale for the illegal market gain thus casting a serious aspersions on the character of the petitioners which finding was arrived at by the Consumer Forum, without any basis, even if, the finding of deficiency in service is upheld. 6. It has been submitted that in view of above, as serious questions are involved, which cast a doubt on the reputation of the firm, the matter ought to have been heard on merit rather being dismissed on purely technical grounds. It has been also submitted that it was also not a case that there was an inordinate delay in the filing of the appeal. In-fact as submitted above, the appellant had not only deposited 25% of the amount, but the entire amount of compensation as directed by the Consumer Forum. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the order of the Commission deserves to be set-aside and the matter would be required to be considered on merit. 7. In-fact as submitted above, the appellant had not only deposited 25% of the amount, but the entire amount of compensation as directed by the Consumer Forum. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the order of the Commission deserves to be set-aside and the matter would be required to be considered on merit. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants on the other hand submitted that there is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Commission inasmuch as, it is the mandate of law that whenever an appeal is filed, as per the statutory requirement, 1/4th of the awarded amount must be deposited, failing which no appeal could be preferred. It was submitted that merely because of Commission had entertained the appeal without insisting upon deposit of the 1/4th awarded amount, cannot rectify the statutory deficiency and accordingly, order of the Commission does not warrant interference from this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. On perusal of record what we have noted is that the writ petitioners filed an appeal before the Commission, Srinagar belatedly after about 33 days. It is also not disputed that when the said belated appeal was preferred, the Commission had stayed the order passed by the Consumer Forum, though the statutory requirement of depositing 25% of the awarded amount was not complied with by the petitioners as appellants. Thus, the appeal filed by the petitioners was not only belated, but also not in conformity with the mandate of law. However, since the appeal was already admitted by the Commission and it had even stayed the order of the Consumer Forum, and in view of the fact that petitioners had already deposited amount awarded by the Consumer Forum, the Commission could have heard the matter on merit rather dismissing the same on the ground of limitation. Thus, by interfering with the order of the Commission, we could have remanded the matter to the Commission to reconsider the matter on merit. 10. We are however, reluctant to do so, considering the fact that the matter pertains to an incident which happened in year 2005, in which the Consumer Forum had given his opinion in 2007 and if we remand the matter to the Commission to consider the matter afresh, at this stage, it would cause further delay in the matter. 10. We are however, reluctant to do so, considering the fact that the matter pertains to an incident which happened in year 2005, in which the Consumer Forum had given his opinion in 2007 and if we remand the matter to the Commission to consider the matter afresh, at this stage, it would cause further delay in the matter. Therefore, we have thought it appropriate to decide the matter on merit, as we have heard all the parties in detail. 11. A complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 to 4 before Consumer Forum against the present writ petitioners alleging that the petitioners had cancelled the ticket booked by them for the return journey from Delhi to Srinagar on 03-01-2006 for the whole family, for their visit to Ajmer Sharief, resulting in serious inconveniences, embarrassment and pecuniary loss and compelling them to travel from Delhi to Srinagar via Jammu by road. It is the case of the respondents-complainants that they had gone on tour to Ajmer Sharief on 17-12-2005 and stayed upto 26-12-2005, for which they had booked air ticket for the journey to and fro Delhi to Srinagar. It is their case that when the complainant along-with his family arrived at Delhi airport on 03-01-2006, to board the flight to Srinagar, they were informed that their names were not listed in the list of passengers for the aforesaid flight because of which they attempted to contact to petitioner No. 1 through whom the tickets were booked which proved unsuccessful. With no alternative option left open, the complainant sold his valuables worth Rs. 50,000/- for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- to proceed by road from Delhi by bus via Jammu. Unfortunately, after reaching Jammu, to their despair they found that the National Highway was blocked due to landslides which further compounded their problems. It has been contended that because of the illegal act of the writ petitioners in cancelling their air ticket they suffered not only great inconveniences but humiliation, embarrassment and accordingly, lodged a complaint before Consumer Forum claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss caused to them due to negligence and deficient service on the part of writ petitioners and unfair trade practice adopted by them. 12. The claim was obviously contested and consequently evidences were led by both the sides. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss caused to them due to negligence and deficient service on the part of writ petitioners and unfair trade practice adopted by them. 12. The claim was obviously contested and consequently evidences were led by both the sides. The Consumer Forum after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that petitioners were guilty of deficiency in service and causing inconveniences and harassment to them and directed petitioner No. 1 to return the cost price of the tickets amounting to Rs. 6680/- along-with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till realization, and also compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards mental and physical agony and economic loss suffered by them with additional amount of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Since we have proceeded to examine the matter ourselves on merit rather remanding the matter to Commission, we have examined the evidence mentioned in the order passed on 23-07-2007 passed by the Consumers Forum, Srinagar which recorded the evidence of the complainant as well as the respondents. We would like to briefly refer to the evidence on record as well as the allegations made by the complainant. 13. The petitioners had filed a written version in which it was mentioned that the complainants booked an air ticket from Delhi to Srinagar for the whole family from Travel Plus Tours on 09-12-2005 for which the PNR No. J36EAW was assigned which was confidential between the persons who booked the ticket and the concerned travel agent. It was claimed by the petitioner No. 1 that the said air ticket was cancelled by the complainant on 16-12-2005 and as such, the complaint filed is based on concocted and false story. It was also denied on the part of petitioners that there was any deficiency in service. It was also contended that no Spice Jet flight could take off from Delhi to Srinagar on 03-01-2006 and Flight No. 0S850 was cancelled due to bad weather and heavy snowfall at Srinagar, therefore the question of deficiency in service did not arise. 14. It was also denied on the part of petitioners that there was any deficiency in service. It was also contended that no Spice Jet flight could take off from Delhi to Srinagar on 03-01-2006 and Flight No. 0S850 was cancelled due to bad weather and heavy snowfall at Srinagar, therefore the question of deficiency in service did not arise. 14. The concerned airlines which was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 also filed their written version before the Consumer Forum in which it was stated that the travel agent-petitioner No. 1 booked the air ticket for 03-01-2006 from Delhi to Srinagar on behalf of complainants on 09-12-2006 at 3:00 P.M by using the internet website of the petitioner No. 2 and payments of the said ticket were also remitted by the petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 2. 15. It was contended that the said ticket was cancelled by petitioner No. 1 on 16-12-2002 at 17:44 hours by using internet website of company and accordingly, the price was refunded to the travel agent. 16. The complainant-Ghulam Nabi Bhat testified before the Consumer Forum and also presented a duly sworn affidavit in which he narrated the incident as mentioned above. He stated in his cross examination that air ticket was booked by his son, Mohd Iqbal but later on when he arrived at the Delhi Airport and at the checking counter, he was told that his ticket has been cancelled. In spite of his best efforts to contact the petitioner No. 1, he did not receive any response. He also stated that while coming to Srinagar by road he had to wait and stay several days at Jammu, as the road was closed and they were short of money because of which he had to sell his valuables worth Rs. 50,000/- which comprised of two golden bangles and lehenga for an amount of Rs. 12,000/-. He stated that his son had applied to the petitioner No. 1 to get refund of the air ticket, but they did not get the refund of the same. 17. The complainant also examined one Mohd Iqbal as a witness on behalf of the complainant who had also presented his duly sworn affidavit before the Consumer Forum in which he stated that he booked the air ticket from Delhi to Srinagar for 03-01-2006 from the petitioner No. 1 on 09-12-2005. 17. The complainant also examined one Mohd Iqbal as a witness on behalf of the complainant who had also presented his duly sworn affidavit before the Consumer Forum in which he stated that he booked the air ticket from Delhi to Srinagar for 03-01-2006 from the petitioner No. 1 on 09-12-2005. He also stated in his affidavit that he had never requested for cancellation of the air ticket to the petitioner No. 1 on any occasion and he on the very day on 03-01-2006 visited the petitioner No. 1 and enquired about the same, but the petitioner No. 1 at that stage refused to acknowledge that the said ticket has been cancelled. He also stated that his father had informed him telephonically from Delhi that the ticket was cancelled by petitioner No. 1 through one Yasir C/o Travel Plus. 18. The complainant also examined one Imtiyaz Ahmad Kapra who stated that he has been in the trade for the last three years and complainant was known to him. He stated that at the time of the booking of the air ticket, the son of the complainant had not submitted any written form and the payment was made in cash. He also deposed that the complainant did not make any request for cancellation on behalf of the travel agent. 19. From the side of the petitioners, Yasir Ahmad was examined who was working as a Computer Operator with the petitioner No. 1 who was involved in the issuance, confirmation and cancellation of air tickets which were being booked in the office of petitioner No. 1. He stated that a person who identified himself to be the son of the complainant No. 1 had booked an air ticket on 09-12-2005 from Delhi to Srinagar in the office of petitioner No. 1 and a confirmed ticket was handed over to him. He stated that the office of Petitioner No. 1 was again contacted by the son of the complainant who made a request that the air ticket confirmed in the name of the complainants be cancelled. Accordingly, the same was cancelled after the son of the complainant provided the correct PNR number which is otherwise confidential and known only to the person who books a ticket or who is holder of the air ticket. Accordingly, the same was cancelled after the son of the complainant provided the correct PNR number which is otherwise confidential and known only to the person who books a ticket or who is holder of the air ticket. It was stated that by cancelling the air ticket of the complainants, no profit accrued to the petitioner No. 1, as he does not get any commission from the petitioner No. 2-airlines company. In the cross examination he admitted that though they normally receive written slip from the customer, but in the present case they did not receive any slip, and at the time of cancellation of air ticket they did not obtain any written application from the customer but only asked customer to produce the ticket where they affix the cancellation seal on it. But in this case, they did not follow this practice. 20. We have considered the entire materials on record. The Consumer Forum on consideration of the entire materials and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties as well as the evidence adduced before the Consumer Forum, observed that the core controversy between the parties is as to whether a cancellation of air ticket was made by the son of the complainant No. 1 or it was done by the petitioner-Travel Agent with a nefarious design. 21. Coming to this aspect as to who had cancelled the air ticket, it is the case of the complainants that the ticket was cancelled by the travel agent through one Yasir C/o Travel Plus. However, when Yasir Ahmad was examined on behalf of the petitioner No. 1, he admitted that they have not fixed the cancellation seal on the air ticket which was the procedure being followed when any customer approaches them for cancellation of ticket, and when they are satisfied that the correct PNR number has been quoted by the customer, they used to proceed with the cancellation and later on affix cancellation seal of the air ticket. Since he has admitted in his cross examination that in the present case, they have not affixed the cancellation seal on the ticket which was allegedly presented before them for cancellation, the evidence of the petitioners was quite contradictory and not inspiring as regards the claim that the son of the complainant had approached them for cancellation of the air ticket. The Consumer Forum also noted that the cancellation is made only when the PNR number is disclosed by the customer and in the present case the cancellation was done by the petitioner No. 1 through one Yasir Ahmad and it is a fact that PNR number is also known to the travel agent and not only to the customer. Therefore, if the travel agent was knowing the PNR number it can certainly play mischief and the Consumer Forum was of the view that it was the travel agent who played the mischief by cancelling ticket of low economy so that they could resale it for illegal gain in the black market. The Consumer Forum took the view that if the son of the complainant had applied for cancellation of air ticket, the proper procedure would have been followed and cancellation slip would have been affixed by the travel agent on the confirmed ticket which was not done, which clearly proves there was no role on the part of the complainants for the cancellation of the air ticket. 22. The Consumer Forum also took the view that there was every possibility that this confirmed ticket was re-sold by petitioner No. 1 through one Yasir Ahmad on a higher price to any other person, which cannot be ruled out. The Consumer Forum accordingly took the view that on the basis of evidence on record it comes out clearly that the ticket was cancelled by the travel agent-petitioner No. 1 through their agent Yasir Ahmad and it has come on record that the said Yasir Ahmad C/o Travel Plus had cancelled the ticket. The Consumer Forum also noted that in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Yasir Ahmad, he had stated that the name of the person who had cancelled the air ticket has not been reflected in the records of the Travel Agent. The Consumer Forum accordingly held that the son of the complainant no. 1 was not responsible for the cancellation of ticket. The airlines also had admitted that the complainants were denied boarding card which shows their presence in Delhi. 23. The Consumer Forum accordingly held that the son of the complainant no. 1 was not responsible for the cancellation of ticket. The airlines also had admitted that the complainants were denied boarding card which shows their presence in Delhi. 23. Accordingly, the Consumer Forum concluded that the complainants had sufficiently proved that they had suffered immensely when they were refused boarding pass by the staff of the airlines and they were informed that their names were not in the list of passengers and that the tickets have been cancelled by the Travel agent through one Yasir Ahmad, and that they had also proved that they were not having sufficient money to travel from Delhi to Srinagar and were constrained to sell some of their valuables, thus it was proved that because of the cancellation of air ticket on the part of Travel agent, there has been not only deficiency in service towards the complainants but they also committed unfair trade practice with the complainants. The Consumer Forum, however, held that there was no evidence to the effect that the complainants sold the valuables of Rs. 50,000/- for an amount of Rs. 12000/-. Accordingly, the Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and petitioner No. 1 was directed to refund the cost price of the air ticket amounting to Rs. 6,680/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till their realization and also awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the complainants for the mental and physical agonies and economic loss suffered by them. Further an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded as cost of litigation in favour of complainants. 24. This Court while examining the evidence is not sitting as an Appellate Forum but exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, and we are examining this issue considering the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the matter which pertains to an incident occurring in the year 2006 in which the Consumer Forum has given an award in favour of the complainants which was being challenged before the Commission in year 2008. The Commission as mentioned above, dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay as being hit by limitation. The Commission as mentioned above, dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay as being hit by limitation. Though we could have remanded the matter to the Commission to re-examine the matter on merit but in view of the fact that more than 17 years have passed since the incident had happened and about 16 years have lapsed since the Commission passed the award, we instead of remanding the matter to the said Commission, have taken to ourselves to examine the matter to avoid any further delay in the matter. 25. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a beneficial statute and different fora have been provided under the Act to provide efficacious and speedy remedy to the consumers who may allege deficiency in service by the service providers. It is also well settled that the Consumer Forum or the Commission is not a Court but a quasi-judicial forum which decides the issues by following procedure in which the law of evidence or the Code of Civil Procedure etc. are not strictly applicable but by following the general and broad principles of evidences and other legal principles. The finding so arrived is based on preponderance of probabilities. Thus, if on the basis of material evidence which have been adduced before the Consumer Forum, if the Forum comes to a conclusion that there has been deficiency in service and passes appropriate order or award, the same are not to be interfered with, unless the same is found to be without any basis or material evidence and is contrary to law. In the present case, what we found is that the Consumer Forum considered the evidences in the form of documentary and oral evidences adduced by both the parties. The finding arrived at by the Forum cannot be said to be without any basis. Infact, what we have noted is that the conclusion and decision of the Forum are based on material evidences which were adduced and produced before the Forum as discussed above. We do not find the findings of the Forum to be based on no evidence or the same to be arbitrary or irrational or contrary to law. 26. Infact, what we have noted is that the conclusion and decision of the Forum are based on material evidences which were adduced and produced before the Forum as discussed above. We do not find the findings of the Forum to be based on no evidence or the same to be arbitrary or irrational or contrary to law. 26. There is evidence to the effect that the complainants had purchased air ticket for their return journey from Delhi to Srinagar on 03.01.2006, and that when the complainants arrived at the Delhi airport, they were informed that their tickets had been cancelled. The issue before the Consumer Forum was as to who had cancelled the air ticket. The complainants’ case was that it was cancelled by the travel agent through whom they had booked the ticket and on the other hand, it was the case of the travel agent that son of the complainant no. 1 had cancelled the ticket through the travel agent. Consumer Forum considered the evidences that were adduced by the contesting parties as discussed above. The plea of the travel agent was that the ticket was cancelled by the son of the complainant no. 1 as he was the one who was knowing the PNR number which was required to be informed to the travel agent before the cancellation of ticket. However, it has also come out in evidence that the procedure followed for cancelling a ticket was of affixing the stamp of cancellation on the ticket after the cancellation was done, which was apparently not followed in the present case. Thus, the Consumer Forum did not believe the version of the travel agent and the airlines that the ticket was cancelled by the son of the complainant no. 1. Since it was also not denied by the travel agent that the ticket was cancelled by one of their employees, Yasir, though he had claimed that he had done it allegedly at the instance of the son of the complaint, the Consumer forum did not believe their version, as the travel agent did not affix the cancellation stamp on the ticket which was the practice being followed by the travel agent while cancelling tickets. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Consumer Forum that it was the travel agent which cancelled the ticket without instruction from the complainants cannot be said to be perverse and not based on evidence. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Consumer Forum that it was the travel agent which cancelled the ticket without instruction from the complainants cannot be said to be perverse and not based on evidence. 27. We also have considered the inference drawn by the Consumer Forum to the effect that the petitioners had engaged in unfair trade practice. We do not see any reason as to why the passengers should cancel their return air ticket after they have undertaken their journey and were returning home. If the complainants had really cancelled the tickets, we find no reason why they should proceed to the airport and report for departure. The other question which also arises is why should the travel agent cancel the tickets? If the travel agent had cancelled the ticket without instructions from the consumer as has been proved, obviously the only inference that can be drawn, as also drawn, by the Consumer Forum is that, they were reselling the tickets and one can take judicial note of the fact that the air ticket to and fro Srinagar and Delhi is very expensive because of inconveniences in travelling by road or surface from Delhi to Srinagar. If one wishes to travel to Srinagar by surface from Delhi, one has to go via Jammu by road or train and then proceed from Jammu to Srinagar only by road, which is sometimes hit by landslides. We have also taken into consideration the claim of the travel agent and the airlines that on that day, the flights could not operate because of bad weather. If the flights had been cancelled because of bad weather as claimed by the petitioners, the tickets of all the passengers would have been automatically deemed to have been cancelled and the passengers would be entitled to reimbursement and there was no need for individual cancellation of ticket by the travel agent as happened in the present case. It may be noted that the travel agent had also not mentioned when the tickets were cancelled allegedly at the instance of the son of the complainant no. 1 which is in the record and knowledge of the travel agent. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the conclusions arrived at by the Consumer Forum and the decision taken does not suffer from any illegality and that it cannot be said to be without any material basis. 1 which is in the record and knowledge of the travel agent. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the conclusions arrived at by the Consumer Forum and the decision taken does not suffer from any illegality and that it cannot be said to be without any material basis. Rather, there are sufficient material evidence on record for arriving at such conclusions. 28. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that remanding the matter to Commission would merely prolong the matter. Further, considering the fact that the award appears to be reasonable, in our view the litigation involved must be brought to an end after it has suffered a long journey of 17 years of litigation after the complaint was filed in 2006. 29. Since we have found that the findings arrived at by the Consumer Forum does not suffer from any irregularity and illegality, the rejection by the J&K State Consumers Commission does not warrant any interference from our end. 30. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition by not interfering with the finding as well as the order passed by the J&K State Consumers Protection Forum. 31. Disposed of accordingly.