POST MASTER, KUMARAKOM POST OFFICE vs P.R. AYYAPPAN PILLAI

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kottayam, in O.P. No. 534/93. Opposite Parties are the appellants.

IT is the case of the complainant that the complainant sent a telegram to his son Sunil Kumar who is staying at Bombay, stating that the complainant would be starting to Bombay on 13th March. The telegram was delivered to the complainant''s son in a mutilated condition. What was stated therein was that the complainant would start on 30th March. The complainant started for Bombay on the 13th March and reached Bombay on 15th and due to the wrong transmission of the message, nobody came to receive the complainant and this caused mental agony to the complainant and he claimed Rs. 17,500/- as compensation. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version stating that the opposite parties transmitted the message correctly to C.T.O. Kottayam. They also alleged the period of preservation was over by the time the complaint was received by the complainant. As per the condition printed on the reverse of the telegram, the Director General was not liable to make any compensation for any loss, injury or damage. As per Indian Telegraph Rules 1957 accuracy of Telegram was not guaranteed. Section 6 of the Post Office Act was pressed into service.

The District Forum passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been preferred.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act has provided immunity to Government and officials of department against any claim for damages on account of deficiency in delivery of any message. Section 9 reads as follows:- "The Government shall not be responsible for any loss or damage which may occur in consequence of any telegraph officer failing in his duty with respect to the receipt, transmission or delivery of any message, and no such officer shall be responsible for any such loss or damage, unless he causes the same negligently, maliciously or fraudulently." The District Forum has not considered the legal effect of Section 9. The Government has been given absolute immunity under this Section. However there is no absolute immunity provided to the officer. Under Section 9 of the Act, an officer shall be responsible for any loss ,or damage if it is caused negligently, maliciously or fraudulently. However to pass an order against an officer he must be on the party array. Since these aspects were not considered by the District Forum, we feel the proper course to be adopted in this appeal is to set aside the order of the District Forum and remit back the matter to the District Forum for consideration. Case remitted back.