PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER Counsel for the petitioner heard. 2. The complainant, Haridasan, booked Tatkal Seva Journey-cum-Reservation ticket in Maveli Express from Trivendrum to Kannur. He boarded the train on 21.03.2012. During the travel, Mrs. Rajani, Train -2- Ticket Examiner, Southern Railway, Palaghat came for inspection. She demanded the ID proof from the complainant, Haridasan. Haridasan showed the Election ID Card, the ID card issued by the Bar Association, Kannur, the Identity card issued by the Chairman, Bar Council of Kerala and his driving license. It could not satisfy Mrs. Rajani, train ticket examiner. The complainant was allowed to travel in the train only on payment of excess fare in the sum of Rs. 250/-, besides the train ticket fare in the sum of Rs. 212/- . Subsequently, the complainant approached the District Forum and claimed Rs. 462/- being the excess amount collected and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 462/- as excess charges and Rs. 1,000/- as compensation with Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings. 4. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed the First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He argued that the opposite party No.4 is authorized to check the ticket and ask for ID proof during the travel, which is mentioned in Tatkal Seva Journey-cum-Reservation ticket. He has invited our attention towards commercial circular No. 59/2011 dated 11.11.2011. -3- 6. However, it is difficult to fathom on what basis ticket was issued to the complainant. He must have filed some proof or evidence or the proof before the ticket issuing clerk. That record was withheld for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner admits that, that record was also not produced before the District Forum. Its absence dampens the ardour of petitioner’s case. That is the main evidence, which did not see the light of day. If he had no valid proof why the ticket was given to him? Moreover, the proof of identity which has been discussed above, is more than sufficient. There was no reason to discard the same. The action taken by the opposite party No.4 is arbitrary and capricious. 7. The revision petition has no force. The same is therefore, dismissed at the time of its admission. | 
