JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant, which is a statutory body constituted under the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act 1971 has been organizing pilgrimage to Nanded Saheb. The complainant made a security deposit of Rs. 1,80,000/- with the petitioner Northern Railways, out of which Rs. 1,50,000/- was deposited on 05.12.2002 and Rs. 30,000/- on 09.12.2002. Out of the said amount, Rs. 90,000/- was adjusted at the time of issue special ticket no. 71488 and the balance amount was retained as security deposit. The complainant organized another pilgrimage to Nanded Saheb and made another security deposit of Rs. 1,80,000/-, out of which Rs. 90,000/- were deposited at the time of issue of special ticket no. 71489 and the balance amount was retained as security deposit. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- remained with the petitioner as security deposit. The complainant wrote several times to the petitioner seeking refund of the aforesaid security deposit. Since, the petitioner failed to refund the said amount despite repeated requests, a complaint was filed before the concerned District Forum, seeking refund of Rs. 1,80,000/- alongwith interest and Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation. (2) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party primarily on the ground that as per Railway Rules, no refund can be given if the folder or ticket is lost or both are not deposited in original. If the folder is submitted after 15 days to within 6 months of the completion of tour, 50% of the deposit can be refunded with the approval of the CPM, however no amount is refunded if the claim is made after six months. It was stated in the reply that the complainant did not submit the original folder as per the requirement of the rule and therefore the security amount could not be refunded to it. (3) The District Forum, vide its order dated 29.04.2010, directed the petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 90,000/- since balance amount had been paid in the meanwhile. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal was dismissed in default. (4) Though, the rule referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been placed before us, we presume for the sake of argument that there is a rule which requires the person depositing the security to submit the original folder within the time stated in the reply filed by the petitioner. However, a perusal of letter dated 18.03.2005 sent by the Directorate of Public Grievances would show that as per the rule 401.13, the said folder was handed over by Chief Commissioner of the Originating to the organizer for reserving the train. It is the duty of the Station Manager to fill up the details in the folder based on the details provided by the party and affix the station seal before the departure of the train. The case of the complainant is that no such folder was given to them in respect of either journey, as a result of which they were not in a position to submit the said folder at the time of seeking refund of the security deposit. We have perused the reply filed by the petitioner before the District Forum. The aforesaid allegation made in para 15 of the complaint has not been controverted in the reply. There is no averment in the reply that the Station Master had filled up the requisite details in the folder and had handed over the same to the complainant after initialing the same and affixing seal on them, before departure of the train. Obviously, the complainant cannot be made to suffer for the lapse of the Railway officials. Had they handed over the folder duly filled in, only then the complainant could have been called upon to submit the said folder, while seeking refund of the security deposit. (5) Moreover, we fail to appreciate what useful purpose is served from insisting upon production of original folder after the journey has been successfully performed and no complaint had been received by the Railway alleging any malpractice on the part of the tour operator. The Government is expected to be fair to its citizens and it would be highly unfair on its part to deny refund of the money deposited by a person merely on account of the inability of the petitioner to produce such a document. We, therefore, find no fault in the view taken by the District Forum. Since we are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by the District Forum, there is no need to remand the matter back to the State Commission for hearing the appeal on merits. The revision petition is therefore dismissed.