Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is noted from the scrutiny sheet put up by the Registry that there is a delay of 26 days in filing the present revision petition by the petitioner/complainant. In his application for condonation of delay, it is submitted by the petitioner that due to misplacement of the case file bundle by the advocate’s clerk, he could not file the revision petition in time. Besides this, he has submitted that the delay in filing the revision petition is neither willful nor deliberate and hence the delay should be condoned. We have considered the reasons put fourth by the petitioner but we do not find the same to be convincing or satisfactory to justify the delay. In view of this, this revision petition can be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. However, we have considered the petition on merits also. 3. The complainant in this case, who is petitioner herein, purchased eight tickets from Secunderabad for self and his family members for sleeper class for Rs.2700/- for their travel from Allahabad Junction to New Delhi for journey dated 30.01.2007 by train no.2497 Prayag Raj Express. According to the complainant, he lost the tickets and informed the Station Master on duty at Allahabad Junction about it. The Station Master suggested him to contact the TTE on duty in the train as the time for processing was short. The complainant along with his family members boarded the train at Allahabad Junction on 30.1.2007 and informed the matter with the TTE who in turn issued excess fare tickets for Rs.2574/- in lieu of the lost tickets. The complainant thus made double payment for single journey. He made a complaint to the OPs for refund of excess fare of Rs.2574/- plus excess of Rs.126/- amounting to Rs.2700/-. The OPs asked the complainant to send original tickets for the purpose of verification and for arranging refund of the amount, if any. The complainant sent photocopies of the tickets but the OPs denied to refund the amount. The complainant got issued a legal notice through his advocate which was served on 12.04.2007 on OPs claiming a total amount of Rs.98,700/- of which Rs.90,000/- was towards compensation for mental agony and harassment. 4. Having failed to get positive response from the OPs to redress his grievance, the complainant approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint alleging unfair trade practice and unscrupulous exploitation of passengers while praying for issuance of directions to the OPs in terms of his complaint. 5. On appraisal of the issues and examining the evidence before it, the District Forum closed the complaint and directed the complainant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal, which is the competent authority to settle the matter involved in the complaint. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the complainant approached the A.P. State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (‘State Commission’ for short). After considering the submissions made by the two parties during the hearing in appeal, the State Commission although did not agree with the approach adopted by the District Forum while directing the complainant to pursue the matter with the Railway Claims Tribunal, dismissed the appeal on merits vide its impugned order dated 08.06.2010. The operative part of the impugned order reads thus:- “The opposite parties cannot be blamed for the lapse on the part of the complainant at each stage commencing from his entering into the train without obtaining the duplicate tickets and culminating in claiming the refund of the amount without submitting the original tickets or proving the loss of the tickets in question. The District Forum referred the complainant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal without assigning any reasons. We have come to the conclusion that the complainant has not proved negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” It is against the aforesaid order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed. 6. The OPs would resist the claim of the complainant contending that the charging of Rs.2574/- by the TTE on duty at Allahabad was in accordance with law as the complainant and his family members had boarded the train without ticket. The complainant was very well aware that he had lost the tickets before he boarded the train and in such a case, the complainant was required to follow the procedure as per rules for obtaining a duplicate ticket since no refund is permissible on lost tickets. There are specific rules governing situations where ticket is lost and duplicate ticket is required to be issued subject to certain payments depending on the reservation status of the concerned ticket. Such regulations need not be reiterated since the same are duly dealt with in the impugned order of the fora below. We find that the impugned order of the State Commission is a well-reasoned order where it has examined the matter on merits and has reached the conclusion that the complainant has not proved negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and hence found the appeal devoid of any merit and hence dismissed it. However, keeping in view the specific provisions of sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, it is hereby clarified that the impugned order of the State Commission shall not come in the way of the petitioner approaching the Railway Claims Tribunal in terms of section 13 of the Act since that Tribunal is competent to deal with claims for refund of fares or part thereof. In the circumstances, irrespective of the decision of the consumer fora on the complaint of the petitioner, he shall have the liberty to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal/Claims Commissioner appointed under that Act for redressal of his grievance in this regard. The revision petition is, therefore, disposed of in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs. | 
