RAJESH TANDON vs SUPERINTENDENT TELEGRAM TRAFFIC

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 866/ 1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is Sales Representative in Chamco Company since last five years. On 28.6.1994 an important meeting of the complainant was fixed at Kanpur for which a telegram was issued by the office on 27.6.1994 which was received by the complainant on the next day in the noon. On account of this delay in delivery of telegram, the complainant could not reach Kanpur to attend the meeting on account of which proceedings could be taken against him. THE complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. In the written statement the opposite party has alleged that the telegram was received on 27.6.1994 in the evening at 6.19 p.m. It is further alleged that the date on which the telegram was received a messenger was available who could have delivered the telegram on the same day. Thereafter even on 28.6.1994 the telegram was given to the messenger on 8.05 a.m. which was delivered to the complainant at 9 a.m.

The learned District Forum after considering the case of the parties awarded a sum of Rs. 100/- as damages and the same amount as cost. 18% per annum interest was to be paid if the amount is not paid within two months of the date of the order.

AGGRIEVED against the order the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order of the learned District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite party and the authorised representative of the complainant/appellant. It is an admitted fact that the telegram which was sent on 27.6.1994 from Kanpur was delivered at Allahabad to the complainant on the next day at 12 noon. According to the complainant this telegram could have been delivered on the same day as the messenger was available. As the telegram was not received in time, the complainant could not reach to attend the meeting. Hence he occurred loss.

THE learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that no messenger was present in the office on the date of receipt of the telegram. Hence it was despatched on the next date. It may be mentioned that the learned District Forum has already awarded Rs. 100/- as damages against the opposite party. In the complaint it has been alleged that he had an apprehension in the mind that action can be taken against him if the complainant did not reach the meeting. No actual damage caused to the complainant has been mentioned in the judgment. At the stage of arguments, it has been argued that the complainant was transferred to Madurai on account of not attending the meeting. This fact was not mentioned by the complainant and no supporting evidence has been filed to show that the complainant was penalised by the Company for not attending the meeting. As this fact was not ascertained before the learned District Forum it cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. The damages awarded by the learned District Forum appear to be justified in order to satisfy the delay which has occurred in delivering the telegram. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned District Forum. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the cost in this appeal. Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.