Sethuraman Subramaniam Iyer vs Triveni Nursing Home

THIS is an appeal against an order of the District Forum, Purulia, allowing a petition of complaint filed before it by the respondent -complainant. The complainant''s case is that a Telegram was booked from Calcutta on 10.2.93 intimating that a press conference which was to be held at Calcutta on 15.2.1993 was postponed. The Telegram was to reach the destination at Raghunathpur within a few hours but it was actually delivered to the addressee by post after 117hours. The complainant''s case is that he had already left for Calcutta on 14.2.1993 by night train after having the reservation on 11.2.1993. His contention is that had the Telegram reached in time, he could have avoided the expenditure and strain of the journey. Again on 4.3.1993, the same person from Calcutta booked an urgent Telegram to the complainant communicating information that the relevant press conference would be held on the 10th March, 1993. The Telegram actually reached the complainant late on 9.3.1993. The complainant''s allegation is that he could not attend the press conference on 10.3.1993 and it has caused agony to him and lowered his reputation in the eyes of the members. For all the above deficiencies, the complainant has claimed compensation of a total amount of Rs.1,000/ -.

THE O.P. -Telecommunication District Engineer, Bankura Division, had contested the case stating that the case was not maintainable as the complainant was not the sender of any of the Telegrams and further that at the relevant time the line was out of order for a considerable period and as such the Telegrams in question were sent by post to avoid further delay. The learned District Forum after hearing both the parties held that in the case of the first Telegram there was deficiency in service on the part of the Postal Authority but in respect of the second Telegram the complainant had no cause of grievance. It, therefore, allowed the case in part for Rs. 500/ - being the expenses incurred by the complainant and Rs. 100/ - as cost.

THE present appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order by the Postal Department. The point for determination is whether the order of the District Forum is correct or not ? DECISION

THE appellant has two grounds of appeal. Firstly, the complaint was not maintainable at the instance of the complainant and secondly, there was no negligence on the part of the Postal Authority in sending the Telegram by post as a consequence of which it reached late at the destination. As regards the first ground, the Lower Court has held that the complainant was the beneficiary of the hirer of the service for consideration and as such he was entitled to maintain the complaint as a consumer. We think that the decision is correct. In such a case, the person who is the beneficiary of the service should be allowed to agitate his grievances before a Consumer Court. As regards the second ground of appeal, it is argued that under the rules of the Postal Department whenever a telegraph line is out of order, the Postal Department is entitled to send it by post. No such rules, however, could be shown to us. A telegraphic message is sent for valuable consideration and in view of the fact that the message is sent very rapidly. If it is held that the message would be sent by post in the alternative, no one could expend a very high amount for a telegraphic service. The payment of a higher amount is for the consideration that the message would be sent rapidly. If for any reason the telegraph line is out of order, it is the duty of the Telegraph Office not to accept any message to be sent by telegraph. It is the duty to inform before hand that the telegraphic message could not be sent and that the same would be sent by post. It is, therefore, a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Postal Authority. In our opinion, the award of Rs. 500 / - and the fine of Rs. 100/ - are reasonable.

AS regards the compensation claimed for this second spell of the journey, we agree with the Forum that there is no cause of action for demanding any compensation in this respect. The Forum has, therefore, correctly dismissed this part of the claim.

FOR all the above reasons, this appeal fails. The appeal is dismised and the order of the Lower Court is confirmed. There will be no order for cost. Appeal dismissed.