CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE vs K.A.MOHAMED HANIF

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 16 July 1998 · Citation: 1998 3 CPJ 514

HON’BLE JUDGES
E.J.Bellie , Pulavar V.S.Kandasamy , Angel Arulraj J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 369 words
1.

THE Superintendent, Central Telegraph Office, Thanjavur, against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant. According to the two complainants one Jahabarali sent a telegram from Kumbakonam Telegraph Office addressed to the 2nd complainant M.H. Sophia but intended for the 1st complainant. That was to be served on the addressee at Ganapathy Nagar, Thanjavur. According to the complainants it was delivered after 8 hours from the time the telegram message was given at the sending post office. It is a death message and because the telegram had not reached in time, the complainants suffered mental agony.

2.

THE opposite parties contended that there was no delay and contended that legally they were not liable for any compensation as claimed. It appears from the post office at Thanjavur the residence of the complainants was just 1 km. away. There may be delay, but the contention of the appellant/opposite party is that the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. In this respect they cite Rule 5 of the Indian Telegraphic Rules and Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The said rule reads as follows: "5. The accuracy of telegrams is not guaranteed, and all telegrams shall be deemed to be sent subject to acceptance by the sender of all risks arising from non- delivery, errors or delays".

This rule makes it manifestly clear that the sender shall not have any grievance for, among other things, delay in delivery of telegrams. In the present case, the complainants are not even the senders and hence they cannot have any grievance against the Department. Furthermore a reading of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act shows that a complaint can be filed only by a consumer to whom any goods are sold or agreed to be sold or delivered or any services are provided or agreed to be provided. It is not stated to the effect that the persons like the complainants in the present case can file a complaint.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed; the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. _______________