ORDER PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER This First Appeal has been filed by Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the ppellants against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the tate Commission which had allowed the complaint of Swagat Kumar Mohanty (hereinafter referred to as the espondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants. In his complaint before the State Commission, Respondent/Complainant who is a Commander in the Indian Navy had stated that on 5th July, 1995, he along with his two minor children were travelling in the Second AC compartment in the Konark Express from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar for which he had been issued AC II tier warrants and which he exchanged with travel authority No.197485 on 13.06.1995 and got in lieu Soldierstickets along with reservation slip for all three births. Immediately after Kalyan Station his tickets and other travel documents were checked and found to be in order by the TTC. Next morning after Wadi Station another TTC came for checking and asked the Respondent to produce the relavant tickets. Appellant immediately could not produce the soldier ticket as it was misplaced. He requested the TTC to allow him some time to search his baggage to locate it and in the meantime showed him his Armed Forces Identity Card and the reservation slip which was earlier checked and found correct by the Railway staff. The TTC did not accept the above documents and neither did he allow the Respondent more time to find the misplaced ticket but instead Respondent was humiliated and asked to pay Rs.2,631/- towards fare and penalty. Since the Respondent did not have the required money, he borrowed the same from co-passengers and paid it to the TTC. However, later at around 9.30 pm, Respondent found the ticket lying between the upper bed and the bulkhead position. Since, Respondent felt that he had been subjected to unnecessary harassment and humiliation causing him mental agony and financial loss by the TTC, he filed a complaint on grounds of deficiency in service before the State Commission and sought compensation of Rs.6 lakhs as also Rs.2,631/- being the refund for the tickets. Appellants on being served filed a rejoinder denying allegations of deficiency in service and, inter alia, stated that Respondent was politely asked by the concerned TTC to produce the tickets which he failed to do as admitted by the Respondent himself. It was further contended that on the Reservation Slip, it is clearly recorded that he ticket would be valid only along with travelling authority quoted, if anyand as a senior officer of the Indian Navy, Respondent could not claim to be ignorant of these instructions. The TTC was justified in asking the Respondent to pay the excess fare as envisaged under Sections 54, 55 and 128(i)(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 for not producing the valid travelling authority. The State Commission after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint by observing as follows: he complainant produced his Armed Force Identity Card and the reservation slip. It may be noted that the reservation slip was earlier checked as is evident from the tick marks. The checking squad should have accepted the bonafides of the complainant. In the presence of co-passengers, forcible realization of fare on the ground that he had no valid travelling ticket must have caused humiliation to him. He was travelling with his two minor children. The incident must have shocked them due to the unauthorized and illegal act of the checking squad. The opposite parties are therefore, liable to compensate the complainant for causing him mental agony and humiliation. We assess the compensation at Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand). The damage cause to him cannot be weighed in terms of money. This compensation has been awarded as a token. In addition to the Rs.50,000/- awarded as compensation, State Commission also directed refund of Rs.2,631/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 06.07.1995 within a period of 3 months failing which interest @ 9% would also have to be paid on the compensation of Rs.50,000/- from 06.07.1995. Rs.5,000/- were awarded as costs. Hence, the present First Appeal. Learned Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Learned Counsel for Appellants reiterated that the State Commission erred in allowing Respondent complaint and finding the Appellants guilty of deficiency in service. It was not disputed by Respondent that he could not produce the relevant tickets asked for by the TTC after Wadi Station and instead showed his Armed Forces Identity Card and the reservation slip as proof of the same. However, since the written instructions to each passenger inscribed on the reverse of the reservation ticket clearly indicated that the icket would be valid only if the travelling authority quoted if anyis also shown, therefore, the reservation slip without the travelling authority/ticket could not be treated as a valid journey ticket and since admittedly the Respondent could not produce the same, the TTC had no option but to request the Respondent to pay excess fare as per the extant rules under the Railways Act, 1989. Counsel for Respondent on the other hand reiterated that the State Commission had rightly concluded that the behavior of the TTC and ticket checking staff was both unreasonable and humiliating and they were not justified in doubting the bonafides of the Respondent, particularly, since he had shown supporting credible proof of his having been issued a valid ticket which had been earlier checked and found to be in order but which was temporarily misplaced and subsequently found during the journey itself. Therefore, the present First Appeal having no merits needs to be dismissed. We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record. The facts pertaining to the train journey undertaken by the Respondent and his children and his not being able to produce the tickets on the grounds that it has been misplaced when it was checked for the second time after Wadi Station are not in dispute. It is further established through documentary evidence on record that when the ticket was checked for the first time, the TTC had tick-marked it in acknowledgment of its being correct (Annexure- 2). It is also not disputed by the Appellants that Respondent did produce his Armed Forces Identity Card and the reservation slip indicating the travelling authority number as proof of his having got a valid ticket when he could not produce the actual tickets which had been misplaced. Under these circumstances, we agree with the finding of the State Commission that the TTC should have, on the basis of this documentary evidence and particularly in view of the fact that the reservation slip clearly indicated that the tickets had been checked earlier because of the tick-marks against it, accepted the statement of the Respondent that he had valid tickets for the journey which have been misplaced. The TTC did behave in an unreasonable manner which is not expected from an employee of one of the largest public service providers in our country. Therefore, while we are in agreement with the order of the State Commission in allowing the Respondent complaint against the Appellants, we feel that the compensation awarded of Rs.50,000/- is somewhat on the higher side particularly since the tickets when asked for could not be produced even if was for bonafide reasons as discussed above. Keeping in view this fact, we reduce the same to Rs.30,000/-. To sum-up, while upholding the order of the State Commission in respect of the refund of Rs.2,631/- with interest @ 9% from 06.07.1995 as also Rs.5,000/- as costs, we reduce the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and modify the order of the State Commission to this extent. The First Appeal is disposed of on the above terms.