JUDGMENT V. Verma, Member—The appeal is directed against the order dated 9-1-1992 passed by the Distt. Forum, Shimla on complaint No. 157/91 filed by the present respondent. 2. Dr. A.C. Mahajan, respondent/complainant purchased four 2nd Class Railway tickets for himself and his three family members for journey from Shimla to Amritsar on 25-1-S990 and applied for reservation of four berths in 2nd Class three-tier coach (i) From Kalka to Ambala Cantt by Kalka Mail on 3-2-19*0 and (ii) From Ambala Cantt to Amritsar by Punjab Mail on 4-2-19^0. Reservation as applied for, is not denied. Grouse of the respondent before the Forum below was that although he had confirmed reservation for journey from Ambala Cantt to Amritsar against berth No. 9,10,19 and 20 in S-2 coach of 3OO5-Up and it was duly exhibited in the chart displayed at the entrance of the above coach, he was not allotted the berths, these having been occupied by some other passengers who claimed right thereto on the strength of purportedly allotment made by TIE. Thus deprived the respondent and his family members had to travel in great distress in the middle of the winter night huddled some-how on the lowest tiers. For the inconvenience so caused through negligence of the appellant and the consequent mental and physical torture and humiliation, he had claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,000 respecting all the four passengers. 3. The District Forum has come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and responsibility for negligence was that of the appellant Railway Administration which was burdened with compensation of Rs. 6,000/- payable to the respondent/complainant & Rs. 1,500/- per passenger. 4. In appeal, the grounds that have been taken are stated hereunder that; (i) the judgment/order passed by the District Forum, Shimla was without jurisdiction as at the time of passing of this order. Forum was not properly constituted. (ii) Rule 3.2 of the Time Table of Northern Railway was not correctly interpreted; (iii) that the explanation of the appellant to the fact that the respondent/complainant himself was negligent in not contacting the or conductor at the spot or in lodging proper protest/complaint soon after the termination of journey has been altogether ignored ; and (iv) finally the amount awarded as compensation is disproportionate and highly excessive. 5. 5. We have gone through the impugned order and heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person. 6. Respecting lack of jurisdiction, our attention was drawn to the fact that the impugned order is signed by the President and only one Member and not by all the Members constituting tbe Forum as required under sub section (2) of Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. When apprised of the subsequent amendment of the original provision the learned Counsel for the appellant did not press this objection 7. Para 3.2 of the Time Table of the Northern Railways issued on 1-11-1989 was the main plank of argument put forth on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, we consider it worthwhile to reproduce it in extenso alongwith the preceding para 3.1, without which the true import is not possible to be appreciated :— "3. Reservation of Berths and Seats : 3.1 General Conditions—The Railway Administration reserves seats, berths, compartments, or carriage in accordance with the rules and conditions published in the Coaching Tariff. A passenger seeking reservation of berths or seats, should purchase the tickets from the railway reservation office/railway booking agencies/authorised travel agencies only. 3.2 The Railway Administration will endeavour to provide reserved accommodation referred to in this chapter, but it does not guarantee the same and will admit no claim for compensation for inconvenience, loss or extra expenses due to such accommodation (including carriages) not being provided or reserved carriage not being attached to a particular. The supply of any particular type of carriage or the provision of a particular berth or seat is also not guaranteed." 8. The supply of any particular type of carriage or the provision of a particular berth or seat is also not guaranteed." 8. While discussing the defence (he para 3.2, the District Forum has held that— "What this rule says is that the Railway Administration endeavors to provide reserved accommodation but it does not guarantee the same and that this rule would be applicable in a case where reserved accommodation has been applied for but not confirmed but not to the instant case where the reserved accommodation bad been confirmed " We concur with the above view as in the background of the provision contained in the preceding para 3.1 there is no other meaning that could possible be read Even if para 3 2 be read in isolation, it would still not absolve the railways of its responsibility as the learned counsel for the appellant strongly urged though in vain to make us agree to. Merely because it is to inscribe that the Railway Administration does not guarantee to provide reserved accommodation and would not admit any claim for compensation for inconvenience, loss or extra expenditure due to said accommodation not been provided. In the present case, it is on record and rightly highlighted by the District Forum, that the berths had been reserved and the reservation had been confirmed What actually has happened, is that these seats were misappropriated and the alternate seats allegedly earmarked by the TTE were not made available (made known to the respondent). Besides, the unrebutted admission of negligence on the part of subordinate staff, by senior functionaries of the Railway is also on record. In the peculiar facts of the case, the above rule, in cur view, has no application and does not help the appellant. There is also no force in the ground mentioned as item (Hi) supra in the light of discussion of this point by the District Forum." 9. As rightly observed by the District Forum, there is no definite yardstick to assess compensation for mental agony and physical inconvenience. The appellant too has not been able to show how the amount awarded is excessive.We accordingly see no ground or reason to interfere with the determination of the quantum of compensation. In coming to this conclusion, we have also taken into consideration the respondents plea for enhanced compensation. 10. The appellant too has not been able to show how the amount awarded is excessive.We accordingly see no ground or reason to interfere with the determination of the quantum of compensation. In coming to this conclusion, we have also taken into consideration the respondents plea for enhanced compensation. 10. In the end, we up-hold the findings and order of the District Forum and dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs. Announced on the 8th day of July, 1993. Appeal dismissed. -