R.C. Jain, Presiding Member—Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 6.10.04 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case No. C309/96. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by a certain Dau Dayal Chaturvedi, power of attorney holder of Sri Guru Sewanandji alias Swami Karshni Guru Sewanand of Karshini Aashram, Raman Reti, Mathura alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Northern Railway Administration and has directed the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.2,46,308 charged in excess from the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of payment till 2.12.97 when the offer was declined by the complainant, besides a compensation of Rs.1,00,000 for deficiency in service on account of which the complainant and other passengers were put to great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony during their train journey and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 as litigation expenses.

2. Briefly, the facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are that the above-named complainant had reserved a special train on 2