ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri S.C. Vyas, President :- 1. These two appeals have arisen out of the same order, dated 25.01.08 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No.256/07, and, have been heard together, so are being decided by this common order. In this order appellant of appeal No.94/08 has been referred as complainant and appellants of appeal No.121/08 has been referred as OP. 2. In nutshell the case of the complainant before District Forum was that he booked a coach of Railway for journey, to be performed on 22.01.07 from Durg to Patna and for return journey to be performed on 24.01.07 from Patna to Durg. Necessary formalities were done and an amount of Rs.67,434/- was paid for journey of 72 persons and for reservation of a compartment. As per understanding between the parties reserved coach was to be attached in Train No.3287 for journey from Durg to Patna and then in Train No.3288 for Journey from Patna to Durg. It has been averred in the complaint that so far as journey from Durg to Patna is concerned, it was as per the prescribed schedule and facility of reserved coach was provided, but in return journey, when complainant and marriage party reached to Patna station on 24.01.07 at 6:30 p.m. then they learnt that no reserved coach has been provided by Railway Authorities and no coach was attached in Train No.3288 for their journey. When complaint was made then their journey was arranged by Vibhuti Express Train No.2334 up to Asansol Station and then again the compartment was disconnected from that Train and was kept in the yard, when again request was made then that compartment was connected with another Train No.8184 from Asansol to Tata Nagar, then again it was disconnected from that Train and ultimately, was connected with Howrah Ahmedabad express. In this way the complainant and marriage party could reach Durg on 26.01.07 at 5:00 p.m. It has been prayed that because of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s, the complainant and the marriage party' suffered a lot and were required to remain without any food or anything to eat of different stations for a long time and were required to be in Railway premises in Railway coach for one day more, earlier as per scheduled programme they were to reach Durg on 25.01.07 at 8:30 p.m.. It has also been clarified that on 26.01.07 itself at 7 :00 p.m. reception of marriage was organized at their residence, but the same also could not be attended by the complainant and members of the marriage party properly, as they were very much tired. For all these inconveniences & deficiency in service, in all RsA,7 6, 720/- were demanded by way of compensation. 3. OP have filed written version in two sets. In the first set OP Nos. 1,2, 3, & 7, i.e. General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.), Sr. Transportation Manager of the same Railway and Chief Station Master/Station Superintendent, Durg and Chief Passenger and Traffic Manager of the same Railway have filed their written version and in the second set remaining OPs i.e. Station Manager, Danapur, Station Manager, Patna, Station Manager, Tata Nagar, Chief Passenger and Traffic Manager, Hazipur, General Manager, Central East Railway, Hazipur have filed their written version. In the written version of the South East Central Railway it has been explained that tour of the complainant was organized after taking consent from both the Railways and when it was informed by concerning Railway Officers that special coach are available for attaching with the Train, for which necessary information were also given to all concerning Railway Authorities and their consent have been obtained, then complainant was demanded to deposit the amount for journey. It has also been informed that information was sent to Central East Railway by a FAX massage & by post, copy of which has been filed by these OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 7. 4. Specific plea has been taken by OP Nos. It has also been informed that information was sent to Central East Railway by a FAX massage & by post, copy of which has been filed by these OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 7. 4. Specific plea has been taken by OP Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, who are part of the Central East Railway and it has been averred that when the complainant reached at Patna, no folder for return journey was provided by him & thus the provision of INDIAN RAILWAY CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION COACHING TARIFF No.26 (hereinafter "IRCACT - 26" for short) rule-305 sub-clause-8 has not been complied with and folder in the form shown in Annexure - 'E' has not been provided by the complainant to the concerning Officers so return journey coach could not be attached. 5. Learned District Forum after considering the arguments advanced by both parties and the material placed on record came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs on account of such deficiency in service OP Nos A, 5, 8 & 9, appellants of appeal No.121/08 have been directed to pay Rs.5,0001- as expenses for food and Rs.72,000I- by way of compensation of 72 persons for their mental and physical harassment, in addition to Rs.3,000/has also been awarded as cost of litigation. 6. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum. 7. There is no dispute that journey by reserved coach was to be performed by the complainant and marriage party and for that purpose advance fare was paid to the Railway. Only contention of Railway is that the folder showing return journey programme, was not provided by complainant to the concerning Station Master, therefore special coach could not be provided at Patna Railway Station and could not be attached in Danapur-Durg Express. 8. Learned counsel for the OPs Shri Vinod Deshmukh very vehemently, argued that as per provisions ofrule-305 sub-clause-8 of IRCACT-26 which has been issued by Government of India under provisions of Section-l 0 of Indian Railways Act have not been complied with. It will be useful to reproduce the provisions ofrule-305 sub-clause-8 which reads as under: "(8) The Railway on which the tour originates will hand over to the Organizer 1 conductor of the tour or the person reserving the carriage, special trains etc., a folder in the form shown in Annexure 'E'. It will be useful to reproduce the provisions ofrule-305 sub-clause-8 which reads as under: "(8) The Railway on which the tour originates will hand over to the Organizer 1 conductor of the tour or the person reserving the carriage, special trains etc., a folder in the form shown in Annexure 'E'. It is the duty of Station Master to fill up the details in the folder presented by the party and initial and affix station seal. It is the responsibility of the Organizer/Conductor or the person reserving the carriage, special Train etc. to ensure that all the relevant particulars of his folder are obtained from the concerned station Master will be required to be filled up only in respect of halts given at the request of the part, either in the original programme or subsequently, and not operational halts at railway convenience. No special Train or reserved carriage etc. will be detained at a station at the instance of the party for a longer duration than that specified in the programme approved by the Zonal Railway unless such a request is received in writing." 9. This provision clearly shows that basically it is the duty of the railway to provide a folder in the from shown in Annexure 'E' to the organizer of the tour. Whether such folder was provided to the complainant or not is not known. It has not been said by any of the OPs that such folder was provided by the Railway, from where the journey initiates. Such folder was also required to be duly filled in by Station Master and it was his duty. Whether this duty has also been performed by Station Master or not, is also unknown. It appears that OPs simply for the purpose of taking objection, have taken this objection, without ascertaining any evidence from all concerning Railway Stations, particularly the Railway from where the journey was to start, as to whether such folder was provided and was filled in by Station Master of that railway station or not. Apart from this, if the folder has not been provided, even then, the duty of the Station Master or other Railway employees does not come to an erid. Apart from this, if the folder has not been provided, even then, the duty of the Station Master or other Railway employees does not come to an erid. When programme was also intimated to all concerning Railway Stations from Officers of Durg Railway Station and was confirmed by all concerning Railway Station Masters, that a special reserved compartment would be provided for the purpose of tour and for journey of the marriage party, then taking shelter of this defence that a particular folder was not provided by the complainant to the Station Master, so reserved compartment could not be arranged, is simply an eye wash and is not acceptable defence. Railway authorities have ignored and avoided their responsibility of providing reserved compartment on the fixed date, to be attached in a particular Train for back journey of the marriage party and as a matter off act such compartment was not provided and they were forced to perform their journey in piecemeal and to break the same at different stations and to wait for their journey for hours in the yards of the Railway Stations. This was really harassing, particularly for these persons, who were members of the Marriage Party and had gone from Durg to Patna for organizing a marriage and were returning back after a cheerfull celebration and were to attend another celebration of marriage reception at Durg. 10. Therefore, we feel that learned District Forum has committed no mistake in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the par1 of the OP Nos A, 5, 8 & 9 in not providing special reserved compartment for back journey, by Danapur-Durg express from Patna to Durg. 11. Second question is that of quantum of compensation. Leaned counsel for OPs has a grievance that amount of compensation awarded by District Forum is on higher side, whereas learned counsel for the complainant has got grievance that it is on lower side, that is why the complainant has also preferred an appeal. After considering the material on record we feel that complainant has paid an amountofRs.67,434/- for the to & fro tour journey, out of which journey from Durg to Patna was performed by marriage party peacefully, without any trouble. But the back journey for which the complainant is complaining and for which fare ofRs.33,717/- was paid. After considering the material on record we feel that complainant has paid an amountofRs.67,434/- for the to & fro tour journey, out of which journey from Durg to Patna was performed by marriage party peacefully, without any trouble. But the back journey for which the complainant is complaining and for which fare ofRs.33,717/- was paid. We feel that amount of compensation should be in proportion to the amount of fare, which has been paid by the complainant and when this journey could not be performed by the complainant and marriage party as per schedule and with comfort, an amount equivalent to that fare and further amount of compensation also equivalent to that fare should be awarded in favour of the complainant. 12. Therefore, we feel that total amount of compensation should not be more than Rs.67,434/-, making it in round figure, we award Rs.67,500/- as compensation to the complainant. Apart from it cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- as awarded by District Forum will also be payable. Appeal of OPs succeeds in pmt and is allowed and the award of the District Forum is modified as aforesaid. So far as appeal of the complainant is concerned we do not find any force in the same and the San1e is dismissed. Order modified.