A.Raju vs POST MASTER

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE complainant is an Economics Graduate, who was unemployed. He had registered his name with the Employment Exchange of Hosur. His name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. at Hosur for a clerical post and M/s. Ashok Layland Ltd. issued a telegram to the complainant on 19.11.91 at 16.35 hours from Hosur Post Office directing him to appear before the Executive (Personnel) at 2.00 p.m. on 20.11.91. THE telegram was received on 23.11.91 at 3.00 p.m. THE complainant could not go for the interview. He, thus, lost the valuable opportunity of getting an employment with a salary of Rs. 2,250/- p.m. He has also lost the seniority in the Employment Exchange. THE complainant has expected to put loss of income, mental agony and he has filed this complaint for compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a consumer, as the telegram has been sent by M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. It is, further, averred that as the line was out of order and the Trunk call did not mature, the message could not be transmitted on 19.11.91. On opening of the office on 20.11.91, the message was tried, but could not be transmitted as the line continued to be out of order till 5.00 p.m. Since 21.11.91 was a telegraph holiday, the telegram was, therefore, sent through post on 22.11.91. There was no deficiency in service. The quantum of compensation claimed is also denied and disputed.

Exhibits A-1 to A-4 and B-1 to B-4 are marked. Proof Affidavits are filed

THE point for consideration is whether the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service and to what relief, if any, is the complainant entitled. Point: The complainant is an unemployed Graduate. He has registered his name with the Employment Exchange. His name has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange to M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., for appointment as a clerk and Ex. A-l is the said telegram issued by M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Hosur, on 19.11.91 at 16.35 hours calling upon the complainant to appear for an interview on 20.11.91 at 2.00 p.m. This telegram has been delivered to the complainant only on 23.11.91 at 3.00 p.m. The explanation for the delay is that the line was out of order on 19.11.91 and even Trunk call did not mature. It is urged that the line continued to be out of order on 20.11.91 also. As 21.11.91 was a holiday, the telegram sent by post on 22.11.91. This explanation is convincing. Mr. K. Nagaraj, working as Telegraphist at Telegraph Office, Hosur has filed an affidavit to this effect. We have no any reason to cast any aspersion on this affidavit. The delay is due to non-functioning of the telegraph line and no deficiency can, therefore, be attributed to the officials of the Telegraphic Department. It is also pertinent to note that the telegram has been given on 19.11.91 at 16.35 p.m. and the interview has been at 2.00 p.m. on the next day. Even if it was possible to issue the telegram after the opening of the office on 20.11.91, it could not have reached the complainant at Namakkal in time so as to enable him to reach Hosur before 2.00 p.m. on that day covering a distance of more than 120 miles. No doubt, it could have been sent by post on 20.11.91 instead on 22.11.91, but that in any way could not have helped the complainant for the interview, that was on 20.11.91 at 2.00 p.m. In any way, therefore, the complainant can have no grievance.

THE compensation claimed is also fanciful. In the first place, there is no surety that the complainant could have been selected at the interview and got that job. THE allegation that he lost his seniority in the Employment Exchange is not substantiated. THE time given for the interview has been so short that the complainant could not appear for the interview in time. In the circumstances, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed, but without costs. Complaint dismissed.