S.KAMRAJ vs POST MASTER, TIRUPATUR POST OFFICE

HEARD Mr. Satpathy, learned Counsel for the postal authorities and Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for complainant-appellant. The complaint petition has been dismissed by resorting to Section 9 of the Telegraph Act and Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and the terms and conditions of the telegram.

COMPLAINANT''s grievance is, three telegrams were sent to him at his N.T.P.C. Koniha address from Tirupatur by his brother-in-law stating sudden accident of his father. These telegrams were dated 21.1.1995, 24.1.1995 and 25.1.1995. COMPLAINANT alleges because of non-delivery of the telegrams in time, he could not get the information about the sudden accident of his father and his death. When he knew the only reaching his village. It is the case of the postal authorities that the telegrams were dispatched in time and that there was no delay on their part in delivering the telegrams. Mr. Satpathy has highlighted the facts of this case and also the provisions of Section 9 of the Telegraphs Act and Section 6 of the Post Office Act, and has supported the judgment of the District Forum.

We have carefully gone through the judgment of the District Forum. We are not satisfied with the reasonings given by it. The sole case of the complainant was that he received the telegrams as late as on 30.1.1995. We have also gone through the written version of the postal authorities. The point for consideration is, whether on the respective dates of booking of the telegrams the same were dispatched immediately or not But on the whole of the written version there is no mention that the telegram which was booked on 21.1.1995 was dispatched on that day itself from the booking office. We have no material even now to hold of that the respective telegrams were dispatched on the same day they were booked. We are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Satpathy that merely because the telegrams were dispatched, there was no deficiency in service. We find the District Forum to have committed an error in giving right approach to the case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the District Forum to rehear the matter in presence of the Telecom Department after impleading them as party and dispose of the matter afresh giving opportunity to all the parties. The District Forum should find out whether the telegrams which were booked on 21.1.1995, 24.1.1995 and 25.1.1995 were actually dispatched on the same dates from the booking telegraph office. Appeal disposed of.