CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE vs MRS.GEETHA SREENIVASAN

THIS is a Revision Petition filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras, passed in F. A. No. 372/94 by which it confirmed the order of the District-Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras. The District Forum held that the present Petitioner Telegraph Department was negligent in rendering service inasmuch as a phonogram sent by the Respondent herein was not delivered to the addressee in time. The District Forum ordered the opposite i.e. Telegraph Department to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant plus costs which were assessed at Rs. 300/-.

THE facts as gathered from the record are that the Complainant (Respondent herein) had sent a phonogram on 17thFebruary, 1992at0203 hrs. to her father''s brother and sister who were said to be residing at 62-B, Main Road, Cuddalore about the death of her father. The said phonogram did not reach the addressees and therefore, they could not attend the funeral of the Complaint''s father. It was alleged by the Complainant that her father belonged to Orthodox Madhwa Community and at the time of funeral her father''s brother''s presence was necessary for performing certain ceremonies. On account of non-receipt of the phonogram he could not attend the funeral. They (above stated relatives) were under the wrong impression that the Complainant had not sent information properly and even now they are under the same feeling. This negligent action of the Telegraph Department has caused pain and agony to the Complainant for which she claimed Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation. It was also alleged that even if there was slight error in the address it was the duty of the Opposite Party to search and deliver the message to the addressees promptly. The Opposite Party-Telegraph Department filed its counter controverting the allegation of the Complainant. It was admitted that the phonorgam was received at Cuddalore at about 0400 hours. It was addressed to one Mr. Narasimhamurthy, 62-B, Main Road, Cuddalore. On receipt of the telegram, messenger was sent at about 0920 hours to serve the telegram but the messenger after making enquiry returned the telegram undelivered at about 1120 hours with the remarks "addressee not known". Again another messenger was sent for delivery at about 1205 hours and the said messenger also returned the telegram at about 1305 hours with the same remarks. Third messenger was sent but he also returned the telegram undelivered at 1530 hours with same remarks. Hence it is averred that it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in the service on the part of the Telegraph Department.

THE Complainant filed affidavit as evidence stating that the letters sent to her father''s brother at the above address were promptly delivered to him and further on 13th May, 1992 she had sent a greetings telegram at the same address to her father''s brother Narasimhamurthy and the said telegram was promptly served on him. In the face of these facts it was urged before the District Forum on behalf of the Complainant that the Telegraph Department''s contention that she had furnished incomplete address in the phonogram was a lame execuse and an afterthought plea.

THE Opposite Party had contended before the District Forum that the delivery of postal articles by Postman and delivery of telegram by a telegraph messenger cannot be equated because the telegraph messenger goes to the addressee in a locality when telegram is to be delivered and the frequency of his meeting and visiting public is very limited while the postman who delivers postal articles gets opportunity of meeting and visiting public very frequently and thus there is every possibility for postman to remember all the local addressees without the full address, it was further contended on behalf of the Opposite Party that the Complainant''s relative''s address had become quite familiar during the dispute which arose in respect of the earlier telegram and therefore, the telegraph messenger was able to fix the Complainant''s relative and deliver the greetings telegram. The District Forum brushed aside the contention of the Opposite Party only on the ground that if the address on the phonogram was incomplete the telegraph messenger ought to have found out the addressee after making enquiry from the postman of the concerned locality but in the present case no such effort was made. Accordingly the District Forum held the Department guilty of negligence in the performance of service and as noticed above awarded Rs. 5,000 /- to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by her. Feeling aggrieved the Department filed appeal before the State Commission and it was urged that inspite of sending three messengers to deliver the telegram to the addressee, it could not be delivered for want of correct address as there are several Main Roads in the Cuddalore and the address given 62-B, Main Road, Cuddalore was incomplete. The State Commission held that there was absolutely no evidence to substantiate the claim of the Opposite Party that there were several Main Roads in Cuddalore. The State Commission also gave importance to the fact that subsequently the greetings telegram sent at the same address on 13th May, 1992 was promptly delivered. Accordingly it dismissed the appeal filed by the Department.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and going through the records we are of the opinion that the District Forum as well as the State Commission had exceeded their jurisdiction by holding that the Telegraph Department was gutfty of negligence in delivering the phonogram in question to the addressee. In the Revision Petition, which is supported by affidavit of the Assistant Chief Superintendent of the Central Telegraph Officer, Madras, it is mentioned that there are seven Main Roads and their names are 1. Vandipalayam Main Road, 2. Tiruvanthipuram Main Road, 3. Pondy Main Road, 4. Devanampattinam Main Road, 5. Nellikuppam Main Road 6. Chidambram Main Road, and 7. Pudupalayam Main Road

It is further stated that there is no locality as "Main Road" in Cuddalore town. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that when there are several Main Roads with different names, it was the duty of the Complainant who had booked the phonogram to specifically mention the complete address with the name of the Main Road. We are of the view that in the present case the Department cannot be held to be negligent while performing its duties. It is the contention of the Department that three times messengers were sent to deliver the phonogram to the addressee but each time the messenger returned the undelivered phonogram with the remarks "addressee not known". It is not the contention of the Complainant that that the address given in the phonogram was complete. The only argument advanced on her behalf before the District Forum was that Postal Department used to deliver the postal articles at the said address. The Telegraph Department has rightly explained that a postman visits the various localities often while the telegraph messenger has no such occasion as he goes to deliver the telegram as and when it is received and such visits of the messenger are not very frequent and therefore, if he is unfamiliar with the addressee the messenger cannot be held responsible. Rule 34 of the Indian Telegraph Rules clearly lays down that the address shall contain all particulars necessary to ensure the delivery of the telegram without search or enquiry. Therefore, if the address on the phonogram was incomplete the Department was not under any obligation to search out the addressee. However, according to the Revision Petitioner later on the Postal messengers who work under different administration i.e. Department of Posts were informally contacted by the Telegraph Office of the Cuddalore for seeking their help for tracing the addressee for communicating the text of the telegram to the addressee and due to such efforts of the Telegraph Office, the addressee came to know about the telegram and he himself came to the Telegraph Office and collected the phonogram at 1745 hours on 25th February, 1992.

WE are of the opinion that the delay in delivering the phonogram to the addressee was not due to any lapse on the part of the Telegraph Department and that it was mainly due to the Complainant''s own fault in not mentioning complete address at which it was to be delivered. The Department made successive attempts to deliver the phonogram but as noticed above for want of complete address it could not deliver. Accordingly we allow the Revision Petition and set aside the orders of the State Commission and the District Forums and dismiss the complaint filed by the present Respondent. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.