IMPORTANT POINT
Railways can not be made liable for damages for delayed arrival of train at its destination.

S.C. Datta. President:- This appeal is at the instance of the railways and it is directed against order dated 27-2-1998 directing it to make refund of the super fast charge of Rs. 15/- to the complainant. The Railway was further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony harassment to the complainant because of late running of train.

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that Mr. D. Singh a representative of the complainant Society was sent to Pune for training and for that purpose a ticket was purchased on 16/10/1996 from New Koilaghat Reservation office on payment of Rs. 1540/- for journey on 14-11-1996 by Gitanjali express from Howrah to Mumbai. The fare of the ticket included a sum of Rs. 15/- as Super Fast Charge On 14-11-1996 Mr. Singh boarded Coach No. A/2 of the said train and occupied the allotted berth. The train left Howrah Station 10 minutes behind the scheduled time of departure. It stopped in the midway due to engine failure. Ultimately it reached Mumbai Station at 1 A.M. in the night of 16-11-1996 i.e. after more than 3 hours 30 minutes of scheduled time of arrival. There was none to receive Mr. Singh and. as such he had to spend time and money to locate the address of his friends and he underwent mental tension and agony throughout the journey as well as on his arrival at Mumbai. The Complainant alleges negligence on the part of the Railways which resulted in the hardship and sufferings to Mr. Singh Accordingly the complainant claim compensation as well as refund of Super Fast charge amounting to Rs. 15/-

3. The Forum noticed that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railways in not running the train on time which resulted in harassment and mental tension and agony throughout the journey as well as on arrival of the train at the odd hours of the night. Consequently the Forum directed to make refund of Super Fast charge and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- This finding of the forum has been challenged in appeal. It is contended on behalf of the Railways that claim for refund of Super Fast Charge cannot be entertained by the Forum in as much as the Railways Claims Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the claim for refund of fares or part thereof.

4. It is not disputed that the representative of the complainant Society traveled by Gitanjali Express and it arrived at the destination State far behind the scheduled time of arrival. In fact it reached Mumbai Station at 1 a.m. in the midnight. The Forum observed that for late arrival of the train at the destination the representative of the Society had suffered mental tension and agony in locating his friends. The Ld Counsel for the Appellant submits that the punctuality of trains is not guaranteed. Admittedly the train ran late because of failure of engine. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to an extract of time table No. 73 of 1996 published by the South Eastern Railway to show that punctuality detrain is not guaranteed and the Railways will not be accountable for any loss of inconvenience caused to passengers for delay or retention of themselves or their luggage. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has also challenged the award of compensation of Rs. 5.000/- on the ground that there is no cogent material to show that the representative of the Complainant Society had to spend a lot of time and money in locating his friends address as no one was present to receive him at the Railway Station at the odd hours of night. He submits that the claim for compensation must be substantiated by sufficient evidence as the compensation his to be assessed not arbitrarily but on the basis of well accepted legal principle. He submits also that the complainant has not quantified the amount of compensation nor has it adduced any evidence to prove the loss actually suffered' by him. In this connection he relies upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of Bharat Tractors. Muzqffarpur v. Sree Ra