Secretary, Deptt.of Telecom and Another vs Chaman Lal

Respondentcomplainant preferred a complaint before the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Protection Commission, Jammu. His case was

that due to negligence of the employees of respondent No. 1 and 2, a telegram meant for him was not delivered to him in time. The telegram was

received in the office of the respondent No. 2 on 16th Feb. 1998. This was wrongly sent to some other person on 17th Feb., 1998. It is on

account of this factor, the respondent complainant was unable to get the job which he would have got had he appeared in the office from which the

telegram was issued. It is stated that on account of the lapse of the respondents the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 15 lacs. The Commission

has come to the conclusion that there was definite negligence on the part of the officers of respondents. One Mr. Jailakhani, an employee of the

respondents was found to be guilty of this lapse. It was accordingly directed that respondent Charnan Lal be paid the compensation of Rs. 3000/.

It is this order which is subject matter of challenge,

The learned counsel for Union of India submits that on account of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act, there is an

immunity to Union of India from being pursued in a Court of law. It is submitted that even if there is some remissness on the part of officials of the

deparement, even then on account of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Telegraph Act. no proceedings for damages can be initiated for

this, reliance is being placed on certain amendments. These have been given under section 7 of the Post Office Act. It is submitted that these

provisions are in parameter a an therefore, what has been said by various judicial authorities would apply to the facts of this case also.

The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. New Delhi,

reported as The Presidency Post Master and Another V. Dr. U. Shanker Rao II (1993) CPU 141, Senior Post Master. G.P.O., Pune v. Akhil

Bhatratiya Grahak Panchayat and Another II (1995) CPJ 230 and The Post Master, Imphal and others V. Jamini Devi Sagolband, I (2000) CPJ

28.

Before examining the matter further, it would be apt to notice section 9 of the Act referred to above. This reads as under:

9"". Government not responsible for loss or damage. 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 of 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,

5, Provisions of Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act are in parimateria with Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act.

These provisions were interpreted by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in AIR 1988 Ker 218. What was observed by the Division Bench

in the aforesaid case is being reproduced below:

...On the language of the Section, we are inclined to think that the immunity ensuring to the Government is complete. A similar view was taken in

Triefus and Co Ltd. v. Post Office, (1957) 2 ALL ER 387), referring to Section 13 of the Post Office Act, 1898. Order XXXIII Rule 5(d)

requires rejection of an application where the allegations do not show a cause of action. When the section in clear terms confers an immunity on the

Government against action for damages, it is a case where no cause of action is shown. We are expressing this view in the context of order

XXXIII Rule 5.

The aforementioned decisions does support the contention put across by the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the above, it is held

that in these matters because of immunity being there, a complaint before the Consumer Protection Commission shall not be maintainable, unless

there is negligence and the act complained is malacious or fraudulent. This is not the case in this litigation.

8, This appeal is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Consumer Protection Commission is set aside.