This Revision Petition is against the order dated 28th June 2012 of the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guwahati (in short, he State Commission in First Appeal no. 45 of 2010. 2. The petitioner/complainant stated that he had got two tickets cancelled at Guwahati Railway Station which were purchased in October 2002 and September 2004 on the basis of Central Credit Card issued by the Central Bank of India. In both the cases he applied for refund of value of the cancelled tickets to the respondents within 90 days on 09.01.2003 and 03.01.2005 respectively complying with all the formalities of guidelines to a passenger and as per credit card rules framed by the N F Railway in consultation with the Bank and followed by other Zonal Railway of Indian Railways. The complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamrup at Guwahati (in short, he District Forum was instituted to get the refund of the second cancelled ticket purchased in September 2004. 3. That on 28.04.2004 he had got a letter from the respondent after a lapse of more than a year, to produce the riginal Charge Slip(no such charge slip granted to the passenger). This relates to ticket purchased in October 2002. The respondent was reminded to look into their Rules and that it was neither necessary as per Rules nor the was passenger advised at any stage to maintain such documents for refund. There after the respondent maintained stoic silence in spite of further reminders. 4. That the petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum, Kamrup in respect of the first cancelled ticket (purchased in October 2002) on 03.05.2005 lest the claim be time barred (case no. 56/ 2005 N K Das vs Chief Commercial Manager, N F Railways and Others). 5. That as soon as the notice of the complaint (case no. 56 of 2005) served on the respondents, the Chief Commercial Manager, N E Railway made refund post haste without formality of so called harge Slip But the second case of pending refund was not attended to till then. 6. That in response to two notices of opposite parties without haranguing on requirements to be fulfilled, the petitioner sent a very polite and decent reply that he had lost track of the document asked for and that the refund on the second pending case may kindly be made as in the 1st case. The reply was sent on 05.12.2005 by registered post. From the 05.12.2005 to this date, petitioner got no response and refund from the respondents though the judgment in the first case was delivered on 04.04.2006 which went adverse against the respondents. 7. The respondent admitted that: The complainant purchased the ticket on the strength of Credit Card for his journey on 13.10.2004. Subsequently, the complainant cancelled his journey and surrendered the ticket on 14.10.2004. The first case was settled without original charge slip under tariff rule on merit of said case as the ticket was cancelled before the date of commencement of journey. The settlement of the present case under beyond tariff rule is at the discretion of the railway authorities. It is further stated that in the instant case, the date of journey was 13.10.2004 and the complainant cancelled the journey and surrendered the ticket on 14.10.2004 at 06.15 hours, which is after expiry of time limit for granting refund. Moreover, the original charge slip was required in case of granting refund of far as per Railway Rules. The merit of the case is different from the pending case as in the first case, the complainant surrendered his journey ticket before scheduled commencement of the journey but in the instant case, the complainant surrendered the ticket after expiry of time limit for granting refund of fare. The refund of fare is not admissible on the plea that the complainant surrendered his journey ticket after expiry of time limit as well as non-submission of vital documents such as Original Charge Slip (Card holder copy). The complainant by his letter dated 05.12.2005 intimated the that the document asked for in question could not traced out in spite of best effort as cancelled ticket was purchased more than one year ago. 8. The District Forum vide order dated 12.08.2010 came to the conclusion that: . The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased the ticket in question on the strength of credit card for his journey on 13.10.2004; that the complainant cancelled his journey and surrendered the ticket on 14.10.2004; that charge slip was issued for the surrendered ticket; that letters dated 25.10.2005 and 09.11.2005 were issued by the General Manager (Claims), N F Railways asking the complainant to furnish the original charge slip (Card holder copy); that the complainant had intimated the OPs vide his letter dated 05.12.2005 that the document asked for could not be traced out in spite of best efforts as the ticket was purchased more than a year ago. 8. The D W 1 Shri Dandeswar Thakuria in his evidence on affidavit has stated that the complainant surrendered the ticket after expiry of 12 hours from the schedule time of journey, that is, after expiry of the time limit for refund of the fare and also failed to produce the original charge slip even after repeated requests for which the matter was delayed and the OPs cannot be held responsible for the same. It is further stated that the complainant did not follow the rules and regulations of the Railways before cancellation of the ticket. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not filed any document to show that the Card Holder Copy of charge slip is required to be furnished to the Railways along with refund application; that he cannot cite any rule to show that refund is not available if the ticket is surrendered after 12 hours of schedule journey; that TDR has been issued under Rule 21 of the Railway Passengers (Cancellation of Ticket) Rules 1998; that as per Credit Card Rules issued by N F Railway, only three copies of charge slip are made one copy for the Bank, one copy for the Railways and one copy for the Railway accounts; that there is no mention of Card Holder Copy. 9. Therefore from the evidence adduced by the respondent, themselves, it would appear clear that as per the credit card rules issued by the Railways there is no mention of the Card Holder copy and that the respondents have failed to provide by adducing cogent evidence that Card Holder Copy of Charge Slip is required to be furnished to the Railways along with the refund application. The respondents also could not cite any rule to show that the refund is not available if the ticket is surrendered after expiry of 12 hours from the schedule journey. If that be so, it can safely be held that the OPs were at fault in not refunding the fare for the cancelled ticket to the complainant on the ground that the ticket was surrendered after expiry of time for refund of the fare and also for not furnishing the card holder copy of charge slip by the complainant. If, at the first place, the refund was not available for the reason that the ticket was surrendered after expiry of the time for refund, there was no reason for the OPs to ask the complainant to furnish card holder copy of the charge slip. This document was sought to be furnished only for consideration of the application for refund of the fare which belies the contention that the refund was not available because the ticket was surrendered after expiry of the time for refund. Secondly, as admitted by D W 1, the Credit Card Rules of the N F Railways does not mention anything about card holder copy of the charge slip. Therefore, there cannot be any reasons for asking the complainant to furnish the same and to delay refund of the fate for non-furnishing of such document. Even if the document (card holder copy of the charge slip) was not furnished by the complainant and if it is conceded for argument sake that the said document is required for refund of the fare, the record shows that one copy of the said document for the railways and another copy of it for the Railway Accounts were available with the Railways and they could have taken necessary action by looking at those copies available with them. Therefore, from the entire evidence and material on record, we find and hold that the respondents were quite negligence and there is deficiency in service on the part in not setting the claim of the complainant for refund of the fare in question and for this act of the respondents the complainant has to suffer unnecessary harassment and mental agony. The complainant is found to be entitled to compensation for the said deficiency and negligence act of the respondents 9. Hence, the District Forum allowed the complaint with the following directions to the respondents: (a) The respondents shall refund the value of the ticket in question (face value of the ticket being Rs.1,345/- after deducting admissible cancellation charges; (b) The respondents shall make payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for his suffering harassment and mental agony etc. (c) The respondents shall also pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as costs of this case. (d) The respondent shall make payment of the aforesaid amount to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment failing which the entire amount will carry an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the judgment till realisation in full. 10. Being aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated 28th June 2012 has noted as follows: . On this point of time-limit for considering the refund, the Railway Passengers (Cancellation of Ticket and Refund of Fare) Rules, 1998 provides as follows: Rule 6 (1) and 6 (2):- Extracts If a ticket is presented for cancellation within four hours before scheduled departure of the train and up to: (i) Three hours, when the ticket is for a destination station up to 200 kms; (ii) Six hours when the ticket is for a destination station of more than 200 kms but up to 500 kms; and (iii) Twelve hours, when the ticket is for a destination station of more than 500 kms, after actual departure of the train, cancellation charge shall be 50 per cent of the fare to minimum flat rate mentioned in clause (a) (2) No refund shall be granted at the station if the ticket is surrendered for cancellation after the expiry of the period mentioned under clause( c) of sub rule (1). 8. From the above position of Rules vis-vis the action of the Railway Authority to consider the matter of refund to the complainant, it is clear to us that the non-refund of fare for cancellation of ticket even after 12 hours was not the mandate of the rules as quoted above. The only binding in such a case is that no refund can be granted at the station and decision on refund is left to the higher authority. The D W 1, the Assistant Commercial Manager of N F Railway stated in his cross-examination that he could not cite any rule to show that refund is not admissible if the ticket is surrendered after 12 hours of schedule journey. 9. In the written statement before the District Forum, the respondents had submitted that the complainant cancelled his journey and surrendered his ticket after expiry of time limit for granting refund and in such cases, the original charge slip is required for granting refund of fare as per the Railway Rules. In the previous case of surrendering the ticket in 2002 the complainant had surrendered it before the schedule commencement of the journey. But in the instant case the complainant surrendered the ticket after expiry of time limit for granting refund of fare. Be that as it may, the respondents had revealed their mind in their written statement as to how they were dealing this matter by their submissions as follows: he settlement of the present case under beyond Tariff Rules is the discretionary of Railway Authorities 10. The proposed application of discretion tilting in favour of the respondent/complainant is clearly visible in the paragraph of the appeal memo which reads: hat the appellant/opposite parties contested the case by filing written statement wherein the appellant/respondent categorically stated the actual facts and law in this matter and also stated that the higher authority of the claim section did not intend to linger on the formalities/technicalities and to honour the claim of the complainant looking at his status instructed to sanction refund of fare and issue refund cheque by following the due procedure regarding refund on credit 12. The above submissions reveal that the cancellation of ticket after twelve hours of schedule departure had posed no legal obligation to Railways in non-entertaining the claim. In view of that no-consideration of refund on the ground that the refund was time barred holds no water. 13. The railways/respondents submitted that the matter was under their consideration of issue of refund cheque by following ue procedure The prime issue in observing such rocedure was no submission of the original charge-slip by the respondent/complainant. In paragraph (N) of the appeal memo the submissions pertaining to this point is: hat during the cross-examination of the D W 1, before the learned District Forum the D W 1 had shown the provision of Rule 12 (2) of joint procedural order for issuance of ticket of Andhra Bank/Central Bank/ Canara Bank where it has been provided that the charge-slip for refunds along with the summary of refund slip will be sent to CMM refunds. However, this document could not be filed in appellate/ opposite party affidavit-in-evidence. In fact, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant failed to furnish either Original Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR)/ original charge slip whatsoever along with application for refund as provided under Rule 21 of the Railway Passengers (Cancellation of Ticket and Refund of Fare) Rules, 1998 14. On the other hand, in his evidence-cum-opposition to the written statement of the opposite parties, the respondent/complainant contended with his submissions that he mini book of charge-slip with four counterfoils are supplied by the credit card operating bank to the railway station for use of credit card holders to purchase railways ticket. When a passenger approaches to buy a ticket on credit card, he is given the mini book of charge slip after being filled up by railway official with particulars of ticket etc., for signature and return three copies after retaining one as the card holder copy. The railway officials after receipt of three signed and activised charge slips hands over the ticket to the credit card holder. The credit card holder copy is purely for records of card holder and it serves no other purposes. The railway rule maker did not prescribed it as a precondition for obtaining refund against credit card purchases 15. In absence of any factual contradiction to his submissions or existence of any rule to is relevance we have reasons to believe that submission of card holder copy is not obligatory to get the benefit of refund. The DW 1 also deposed that he had not filed any document to show that the card holder copy of the charge slip was required to furnish to the railways along with the refund application. 17. In view of the above discussion it is crystal clear before us that there is no legal bar in entertaining the claim of the complainant for refund of fare of the cancelled ticket even after 12 hours of schedule departure of the train. The railways should have not withheld the legally due benefit to the complainant consumer for long on the pretext of mere formalities or technicalities. While upholding the impugned judgment with our such findings, we have observed that the amount of compensation and cost as awarded by the learned District Forum needs to be interfered with as the same appears to be on higher side in consideration of the grievances as projected in the complaint. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, the compensation is refund to Rs.2,000/- from Rs.5,000/- and we do not agree in granting any cost. The appeal was accordingly disposed of 11. Hence, this revision petition. 12. The petitioner has sent a letter dated 8th December 2012 which reads as under: beg to submit with reference to Honle Commission order dated 28.09.2012 in connection with above revision petition that I am a senior citizen aged 77 years and have been convalescing after prolonged hospitalisation (medical certificates already submitted). Under these extenuating circumstances it will not be possible on my part to appear before the Honle Commission on 07.01.20013. My humble prayer before the Commission is to decide the revision petition in absentia as deemed fit on the merits of the submissions in the petition and paper book filed with the Commission 13. We have carefully gone through the records. 14. The complainant purchased the ticket in question with the Credit Card for journey on 13.10.2004. He thereafter, cancelled the ticket at 06. 15 p m on the next date i.e., 14.10.2004 and took the Ticket Deposit receipt for the same vide no. 092460. Vide application dated 03.01.2005 applied for refund of the fare. In the application for refund of the fare, the reason for cancellation of journey reads as under: orgetting the actual date of journey and hence failed to board the train on the date 15. The respondent vide their letter dated 25.10.2005 and 09.11.2005 asked the complainant to furnish the original charge slip (Card holder copy). The petitioner informed the respondents vide his letter dated 05.12.2005 that the document asked for could not traced in spite of best efforts as the ticket was purchased more than a year ago. 16. The respondents could not cite any rule to show that the refund is not admissible for the ticket surrendered after 12 hours of the schedule journey. The only condition is that as per Rule 6 (2) of the Railway Conduct Rules no refund shall be granted at the station, if the ticket is surrendered for cancellation after the expiry of the period mentioned under clause ( c) of sub rule (1) after 12 hours. The settlement of the present case under Tariff Rules is at the discretion of Railway authorities. The respondents also could not establish that for refund, card holder charge slip is required to be furnished. Rule 21 reads as under: or refund of fare under circumstances other than those specified in these rules or where refund is not admissible or granted at the station on account of expiry of time limits prescribed under these rules or otherwise, a Ticket Deposit Receipt shall be issued to the passenger in lieu of the surrendered ticket, as the station where ticket has been surrendered and the passenger may apply for refund, within ninety days from the date of commencement of journey, to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds) of the railway administration under whose jurisdiction the Ticket Deposit Receipt issuing station comes, enclosing the original Ticket Deposit Receipt. Ticket Deposit Receipt shall be issued only upto thirty days after the scheduled departure of the train. 17. In the above circumstances, the District Forum and the State Commission rightly allowed the refund of the ticket in question (face value of the ticket being Rs.1,345/-) after deducting the admissible cancellation charges. In view of the fact, that the refund of the ticket was sought by the petitioner not on any unavoidable grounds or due to any emergency, but because the petitioner had forgotten the actual date of journey there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. The State Commission justifiably reduced the compensation amount to Rs.2,000/- from Rs.5,000/- and did not agree to granting any cost. 18. The State Commission has given a detailed and well-reasoned order nor the same suffers from any infirmity, illegality or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.