Railways do not guarantee the timely running of the Special Trains and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Railways in running the Special Train in time.

Mr. Y. Krishan, Member—This is an appeal filed by the Union of India and the South Central Railway, opposite parties before the State Commission and appellants herein, against the Order of 25th January, 1992 in Case No. 45 of 1991. The State Commission had come to the finding that the passenger Special Train booked by the Rythu Coolie Sangham was not run in time and properly, causing inconvenience and hardship and loss to the complainants-respondents. As such it directed that the Sourth Central Railway can collect only passenger train fare for the actual distance of 135 Km + 135 Km instead of Express Train fare for 1,495 passengers for 500 + 500 kilometers distance with 10% service charges, drat the levy of full detention charges for 10 hrs. is not justified and the same shall be limited to half. The South Central Railway was further directed to refund the amount found to have been collected in excess as per the aforementioned directions.

2. The facts briefly are that a conference of the A.P. Rythu Coolie Sangham was to be held at Guntur on 27th May, 1990. The complainant respondents had booked a Special Express Train for their delegates to attend the conference from Singareni Collieries Railway Station to Guntur. The Special Train was to leave at 7.00 a.m. on the 27th May, 1990 and reach Guntur by 14.00 hrs. on 27th May itself. On the return journey it was to leave Guntur at 02.00 hrs. on the 28th May, 1990 reaching Singareni Collieries Station at 9.00 a.m. on the same day. A special ticket was issued for 1,495 passengers for the to and fro journeys in addition to the amount levied for the special service charges at 10% of the fare.

3. The train, however, left Singareni Collieries Station on 27-5-1990 at 9.00 hrs. in-stead of 7.00 hrs. and reached Guntur at 17.45 hrs. in-stead of 14.00 hrs. In the result the delegates reached there too late to participate in the conference at Guntur.

4. Again on the return journey the train started late at 3.00 hrs. on the 28th May, 1990 and reached Guntur at 9.00 a.m. on the same day resulting in the passengers having to miss their duties.

5. It was also further alleged that the lights and fans in 13 out of 18 coaches were dim and slow as there was not sufficient energy in the batteries. There was also no adequate provision of water in the train. In the result it is alleged that the passengers were put to great discomfort and inconvenience.

6. The train was run like a passenger train though Express train, fare was charged. The slow speed of the train was due to defective vaccum brakes.

7. The appellants have explained that the delay in the starting of the train on the 27th of May, 1990 from Singareni Collieries Station was due to the passengers themselves. At the oral request made by the organisers, the start of the train was delayed as they wanted to wait for some of the delegates who reached the station late or because of indiscriminate chain pulling indulged in by the passengers.

8. Likewise on the return journey also the late departure of the train was due to the late arrival of the delegates at the Guntur Station. On the return journey also the train suffered detention for about 60 minutes because of chain pulling several times.

9. The train also had to run cautiously in certain sections of the line and also had to give precedence to super fast trains.

10. They also pointed out that the charges had been collected strictly in accordance with the Coaching Tariff. As per the Coaching Tariff in the case of Express trains the minimum distance chargeable for fare is 500 km. one way. They have also drawn attention to Rule 401.7 of the Coaching Tariff which reads as under :

“Railways do not guarantee the arrival or departure of Special Trains at the exact times specified nor will they be accountable for any loss or inconvenience which may arise to occupants from delays or detention to themselves or their luggage.”

The appellants have also submitted that the State Commission has granted relief of red