Despite notice sent by registered post on 31.3.2010, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. Registry has reported that there is delay of 310 days in filing this revision petition. Although separate application seeking condonation of that delay has not been filed by the petitioner/complainant, in para No. 11 of the revision petition it is stated that order of the State Commission dated 18.2.2009 was received on 23.2.2009 and revision petition could not be filed by the petitioner due to domestic problems etc. This is hardly a ground for condoning the said inordinate delay of 310 days in filing revision and therefore revision deserves to be dismissed on that sole ground. On merits too the petitioner has not been able to make out case for the claim for which the petition has been filed. Grievance of the petitioner was that he got three seats reserved for travel from Chandigarh to Delhi on 4.11.2006. He was to return on 6.11.2006. Respondents/ opposite parties charged fare of Rs. 348/- from Chandigarh to Delhi whereas amount of Rs. 408/- was charged towards fare from Delhi to Chandigarh. According to the petitioner, as the distance between Delhi and Chandigarh is the same, the respondents could not have charged fare more than the fare from Chandigarh to Delhi for the return journey. Attributing deficiency in service relief was sought for refund of the said amount etc. On contest, State Commission returned the finding that this extra amount had been charged because seats were got reserved for journey from Delhi to Chandigarh from a station other than the journey was originated and the rules provide for such extra charge. Complaint was, therefore, dismissed. Dis-satisfied with Forum’s order, the petitioner filed appeal which too was dismissed by the order dated 23. 1.2009 by the State Commission affirming the said finding recorded by the District Forum. We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional -3- error in the orders passed by the fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed on both the counts.