State Bank of India vs O.N. KAUL And OTHERS

THE State Bank of India, Purani Mandi, Jammu has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Divisional Forum Jammu dated 17.1.1994. This appeal came to be filed by the appellant on 24.2.1994 alleging therein that the responsibility for non-payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the daughter of Shri O.N. Kaul at Madras sent to her by telegraphic money order, has been illegally fastened on the appellant.

THE facts before the Divisional Forum Jammu were that Shri O.N. Kaul directed the appellant to telegraphically transmit Rs. 5,000 /-. to his daughter. This was done by him on 3.7.1992 but the daughter did not receive the amount in time. THE complainant then requested the appellant to send another telegram which was sent by the appellant but again the payment to the daughter of the complainant was not made in time. THE notices were issued by the Divisional Forum Jammu to all the respondents who filed objections. The case of the appellant before the Divisional Forum was that the failure for non-payment to the daughter of the complainant was not because of any negligence on its part and that if there was any negligence it was on the part of the Telecommunication Department who appeared not to have delivered the telegrams to their branch at Madras in time. The respondents in their objections questioned the jurisdiction of the Divisional Forum to try the complaint as according to them the same was barred under the provisions of the Indian Telegraphic Act/Rules 1951. After recording the evidence produced by all the parties the Divisional Forum ordered the payment of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation etc. to be paid to the complainant by respondent Nos. 1 & 2. It rejected the argument that the Divisional Forum had no jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act and in our view rightly so.

As is evident from the dates of decision of the Divisional Forum and the appeal filed by the State Bank of India in this Commission, the appeal is barred by limitation. A condonation application though filed does not disclose any sound reasons for condoning the delay. The Commission, however, in consideration of the circumstances appearing in the case has agreed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits because it feels that the responsibility for payment of compensation has not been rightly placed in the order impugned.

THE State Bank of India, Purani Mandi, Jammu had done all that was required of it by the complainant. It sent the telegrams to its branch at Madras and the Telegraph Office was responsible to deliver the telegrams in time so as to enable the Madras Branch of the State Bank of India to make the payment to the complainant''s daughter in time. We do not agree with the order passed by the Divisional Forum in so far as it states that the responsibility for the delivery of the amount was completely that of the State Bank of India Purani Mandi, Jammu. It appears from the record that there was no negligence committed by the appellant in sending the telegrams and it will be unfair to hold that the appellant in any way was responsible for non-payment of the amount to the complainant''s daughter. THE did all that was asked to be done by the complainant and that too without any delay. THE Telegraph Department was in our view solely responsible for the mishap which occurred in this case. THE Telegraph Department and the respondent No. 3 are being represented by one and the same Counsel. He has submitted written arguments but it was not clear from the arguments as to whether the learned Counsel was opposing the appeal or supporting it. It was, also not clear whether the branch of the State Bank of India at Madras was in any manner responsible for non-payment of the money to the complainant''s daughter. THE telegraph Department has in its objections not alleged that the responsibility in fact was that of the State Bank of India Branch Office Madras. It, therefore, was apparent that it was the Telegraph Department which failed to deliver the telegrams to the State Bank Branch Office at Madras in time. THE first telegram in fact had not been delivered at all. In our view, therefore, it was the Telegraph Department which was wholly and solely responsible for the agony and inconvenience and trouble caused to the complainant and his daughter. In the end accordingly we allow the appeal of the State Bank of India, Purani Mandi, Jammu and hold that the Telegraph Department alone was responsible for payment of compensation and costs in the case. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to the complainant by Department of telegraphs only. A copy of this order be given to the parties free of charges and the record of the trial Forum is directed to be sent to the Divisional Forum Jammu for further necessary action in this regard. The parties shall cause their appearance in the Divisional Forum Jammu on 10th of October, 1994 for further necessary orders. Appeal allowed.