A.A.VARADARAJAN vs ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT (TT), PANAJI

IT is the case of the complainant in his complaint that he was on the look out for better prospects in India and abroad, and, on reading an advertisement issued by Reliance Staffing Services, firm of Re- cruiting Agent, having their office at Tardeo, Bombay, in the Times of India dated 16.2.1992, inviting application for various posts for their principals, consolidated Contractors Co. W. L.L., Abu Dhabi, he went to Bombay and personally submitted an application for the post of Secretary/ Computer Operator in the last week of February, 1992. He further stated in his complaint that after scrutiny of his application, he was short listed final interview and he was told by the Recruiting Agents that he would be informed about the date of final interview.

THE said Recruiting Agents sent the telegram to the complainant on 9.3.1992 which was received in the office of the opposite party No.1 on 9.3.92 and the said telegram instead of being delivered to the complainant who is residing at a distance of about four kilometers from the office of the opposite party No. 1 was sent to the post office of opposite party No. 2, at Betim which was received on 10.3.92. Ultimately, the said telegram was delivered at the residence of the complainant at about noon on 23.3.92 by the Postal Employee of Betim Post Office, after a delay of more than fourteen days from the date of the receipt of the telegram at the office of the opposite party No.1. It is further the case of the complainant that the said telegram was an intimation to him by Reliance Staffing Services to report on 12th March, 1992 for final interview. Immediately, after the receipt of the said telegram, the complainant filed a complaint dated 25.3.1992 with the superintendent of post offices, but, no reply was given to him. It is also the case of the complainant that he is an ex-employee of Consolidated Contractors Co. W.L.L., Abu Dhabi, and that, after serving as a Clerk/Typist from 1.3.1983 to 25.8.85 he was repatriated to India on completion of the project in which he was working, with the promise that as and when new project come up, ex-employees would be given preference. The complainant according to him, was sure of getting a chance to serve again the said overseas Employers, but, due to the late delivery of telegram he could not attend the final interview. The complainant went further in the complaint and said that immediately after the receipt of the said telegram he contacted the Recruiting Agents, but, he was informed that all the interviews and selections were over

The complainant''s case is also that the last salary he has drawn from his former overseas Employer where he has worked as a Secretary to senior Officers was more than Rs. 10,000/- and that he. was expected to get more than Rs. 12,000/- per month as a Secretary/Computer Operator besides free accommodation, messing and medical facilities. The complainant further stated that on account of the said deficiency in service in late delivery of the telegram, he suffered losses, besides mental and physical strain, and, accordingly, he claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) as compensation.

IN the written version filed by the opposite party No.1 it has been admitted that the opposite party No. 1 received the telegram on 9.3.92 at 17.14 hours and that since the area where the complainant was residing was served by Betim post office, the said telegram was sent by post to Betim post Office at night through Panaji RMS and the same was received by Betim post office in the morning of 10.3.92. The Opposite Party No.l stated further that the delivery of the said telegram to Betim Post'' Office was made well in time. The Opposite Party No.1 denied that the Complainant was entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only). The Opposite Party No. 2 in his written version stated that the said telegram was received by Betim Sub-Post office on 10.3.92 and was further despatched to Penha de Franca Branch post office on the same date in regular mail bag. The opposite party No. 2 admitted that the said telegram could not be delivered to the complainant till 24.3.92. The reasons for the delay listed by the opposite party No. 2 in his written version are that the permanent postman of Penha de Franca Post Office was on leave on medical grounds from 10.3.92 to 19.4.92 and that three outsiders worked vice him and further that Mr. Nelson D''Silva who worked as officiating postman from 10,3.92 to 17.3.92 could not find the house of the complainant, being new one in the area, and, that he managed to locate the house of the complainant on 24.3.92 on which date the said telegram was delivered. It is further the case of the opposite party No. 2 that the working hours of Betim are from 8 hours to 16 hours and as per Rule 280 read with Rule No. 84 of Telecommunication Manual Volume XI, the said telegram should have been delivered by the messenger of D.T.O. Panaji as the address of the complainant comes within the radius of eight Kilometres of D.T.O. Panaji. It was further stated by the opposite party No. 2 that had the D.T.O. acted as per rules there was no question of routing the telegram through Branch post Office on 10.3.92 and then further to the concerned Branch Post Office where the complainant was staying, when the transmission of telegram was to be done on telephone. The Opposite Party No. 2 in his reply has cast the blame on the Opposite Party No. 1 stating that there was no reason as to why the said telegram could not have been delivered on 10.3.92 itself.

WE heard Mr. Vidyadharan G. learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. G.R. Sharma, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. The parties in this complaint have filed their affidavits in support of their case. Mr. Vidyadharan, advocate for the complainant argued before us that there is delay of fourteen days in delivering the telegram which was dispatched to the complainant by Reliance Staffing Services, a firm of Recruiting Agents on 9.3.92. He further contended that there is total deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if the complainant had received the said telegram in time, the complainant would have appeared for the interview and would have been selected for the post for which he applied. Mr. Vidyadharan Vehemently argued that on account of deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties, he lost the opportunity to work abroad and that he suffered losses, besides mental arid physical strain, and according the complainant was entitled for Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation. Mr. G.R. Sharma, advocate for the opposite parties admitted that there was a delay of fourteen days in delivering the telegram to the complainant and argued that there was no mala-fide intention on the part of the opposite parties in delaying the delivery of the said telegram since at the relevant time the permanent postman attached to Penha- de Franca Sub-post Office was on leave and his substitutes could not detect the address of the complainant in time, being new. Mr. Sharma further contended that there was no guarantees that the complainant could be selected after the said interview and, as such, no loss has been caused to the complainant.

WE have gone through the records as well as considered the arguments advanced by the advocates of the parties. It is an admitted fact that the complainant made an application dated 26.2.1992 to M/s. Reliance Staffing Services, Tardeo, Bombay for the post of Secretary in response to advertisement published in The Times of India dated 16.2.92. It is also an admitted fact that the telegram was dispatched by M/s. Reliance Staffing Services of the complainant to report for final interview on 12.3.1992 and that the said telegram was received on 9.3.92 at 17.14 hours by the opposite party No. 1. WE have perused the said telegram wherein the address of the complainant has been unmistakenly given as house No. 359, Penha-de-Franca, Virlossa Waddo, Betim 403101. The Opposite Parties did not deny that the complainant was residing at the above address and that ultimately the telegram was delivered to the complainant at the said address on 24.3.92. The Opposite Party No. 2 contended that on account of absence of the permanent postman attached to Penha de Franca Branch Office from 10.3.92 to 19.4.92, he was substituted by three outsiders and one of them being Mr. Nelson D'' Silva who worked as oficiating postman from 10.3.92 to 17.3.92 who could not find the house of the complainant to deliver the telegram in time. The way the telegram was dispatched by the opposite parties at a snail''s pace from one post office to another shows callous and negligent way of dealing with telegrams. The telegrams are meant to give messages in a speedy way. The said telegram shows in detail the house number, ward, village and code number where the complainant is residing, and, under no circumstances even a new postman would find difficulties in tracing the residence of the complainant for the purpose of delivering the telegram well in time.

THE arguments advanced by the Opposite Party number 2 that since the permanent postman attached to Penha de Franca Branch Post Office was on leave on medical ground at the relevant time and three outsiders who have substituted the said postman could not find the residence of the complainant do not hold water. It is not at all difficult in the villages in Goa more so in the Village of Penha de Franca to locate the residence of the addressee. Taking into consideration that the message was to be conveyed through the telegram it was the duty of the postman to make endeavour to find out the residence of the complainant immediately. It has been contended by the Opposite Party No.2 that as per Rule 280 read with Rule 84 of Telecommunication Manual, Volume XI, the telegram in question should have been delivered by a messanger of the opposite party No.1 since the complainant was residing within a radius of eight Kilometres from the office of the opposite party No.1.

Rule 280 reads "A telegraph office may, in order to effect prompt delivery, signal to another telegraph office to which it is connected by wire, during the working hours of the latter, any message entitled to be delivered by hand the addressee of which resides nearer to the latter office than to the former office even though the destination of the message be within free delivery radius of former Office." Rule 84 of the Rules for Inland Telegrams stipulates that in case of large cities where the delivery is arranged through more than one telegraph the free delivery area shall ordinarily comprise the limits of the city. The said Rule 84 further stipulates that in other cases and where free delivery area is not specified telegrams shall normally be delivered free of charge to places within a radial distance of eight kilometres of the telegraph office concerned.

RULE 277 of the said RULEs read: Messages should only be posted:- (a) If the address contains instructions to that effect. (b) If the residence of the addressee is known to be outside the eight kilometres delivery radius. The opposite party No. 1 did not deny that the complainant was residing within the radius of eight kilometres from its office. It is not the case of the opposite parties that free delivery area has specified. Therefore, it was incumbent on the opposite party No.1 to delivery the telegram in question through a messanger immediately to the complainant. The opposite party No.1, instead of following rules made the telegram dance from one pole to another and retained it for no valid and sound reasons.

IT was the duty of the opposite parties to see that the telegram in question was delivered in time by using all ways possible. In the instant case, the opposite parties have followed bullock cart theory and tried to cast blame on each other. As per section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature, manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. As discussed above, and, taking into account the law in this regard, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in delivering the telegram. The complainant did not bring any evidence before us to show that, has be appeared for the final interview, he would have been selected for the post which he applied. A call for an interview cannot be considered a letter of appointment. Therefore, we do not agree with the advocate for the complainant that if the complainant had received the telegram in time he would have been selected by M/s. Reliance Staffing Services. We find, however that on account of the said deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties mental and physical strain have been caused to the complainant and opposite parties cannot simply wash their hands saying that the late delivery of the telegram did not cause any loss to the complainant. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstance we find that the complainant is entitled for a compensation of 7,000/-. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER The Opposite Parties are directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant by way of compensation and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs, within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of this order, failure of which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per year from the date the said amount was payable till its payment besides entailing penalty as provided under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint allowed with costs. ______________