Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President—The opposite parties in C.D. Case No. 140 of 1992 of the District Forum, Bhubaneshwar are the appellants before us. The respondent as complainant filed the aforesaid case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration. His case is that he purchased a ticket in Second Class A/C for journey from Bhubaneshwar to Ernakulam on 1.5.1992 in Train No. 2610, that is, Patna Cochin Express. Admittedly his ticket was not confirmed one and he was in the Waiting List his number in the Waiting List being Sl.3. On 1.5.1992 before preceding to the Railway Station the complainant contacted the Railway Enquiry Counter over phone to ascertain as to the exact time of arrival of the aforesaid train. The schedule time of arrival of the train was 6.20 hours and he was told that the train was running one hour late. Apprehending that the train may make up the delay, he arrived at the station at 6.50 hours, but found that the train had left the station for its onward destination. Since the journey of the complainant was of urgent necessity, he hired a taxi and proceeded to board the train at Khurda Road Junction, but by the time he reached Khurda Road Station, the train had also left the said station. Before leaving Khurdha Road, the complainant contacted the Divisional Manager Shri Singuri, who refused to listen to his grievance. According to the complainant, no complaint could be lodged by him. On reaching Bhubaneshwar he sent a letter of protest by registered post alleging that inadequate information was given to him by the Bhubaneshwar Railway Station for which he missed the train. He, however, purchased Air Ticket to go to Madras the same day and on the following day he made his own arrangements to go to Cochin from Madras. He admits that the train fare had been returned to him and he could not utilise the ticket for his travel. In the complaint petition, he has prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with the expenses he made on hiring a taxi to go to Khurda Road, the expenses incurred by him for Air Ticket from Bhubaneshwar to Madras, the Hotel charges at Madras and expenses on taxi at Madras besides the trunk call charges as well as the expenses incurred by him for dinner and breakfast.

2. The present appellants filed a showcause denying the allegations made in the complaint petition. The sum and substance of their show-cause is that it was the duty of the complainant to reach the railway station sufficiently before the train reaches and the information given to him even if true that the train was running one hour late is no justification for his coming to the railway station after the scheduled time. It has also been said that the Divisional Manager to whom the complainant is said to have contacted over phone had no responsibility so far as the grievances of the complainant are concerned and his refusal if any for taking any steps in the matter is inconsequential. It has also been alleged in the show-cause that the complainant was not entitled to do anything with the Control Room at Khurda Road Junction and he was free to lodge any protest in the Complaint Book maintained at both the places, namely, Bhubaneshwar Railway Station and Khurda Road Railway Station. According to the opposite parties, the case filed by the complainant was thoroughly misconceived and vexatious and unfounded.

3. The District Forum after hearing both parties, however, held that there has been some deficiency on the part of the Railway Administration who, therefore, are liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 400/- to the complainant. The District Forum did not accept the defence of the present appellants mainly on the ground that it was a bald denial of the allegations and it was the duty assured to attend to the difficulties of senior I.F.S. Officer. The District Forum also observed that it was the duty and responsibility of the Railway Administration to inform the complainant abou