SUPERINTENDENT OF TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT vs V.SIVAGANAM (DIED) THROUGH LRS.

THE opposite party appeals.

THE matter arises out of a belated delivery of telegram. A telegram was handed over on 4.6.95 at Pondicherry conveying a death message and it was delivered only on 6.6.95 at Vallipuram, a village within Chengalpattu. THE complainants prayed for Rs. 1 lakh as compensation. The opposite party attempted to take shelter under Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act and also Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. The District Forum overruling the objections, held that there was deficiency in service and directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/-

Aggrieved by that order the opposite party has filed this appeal.

IT was explained by the opposite party that the telegram was handed over at Pondicherry at 15.50 hours on 4.6.95, that it reached Chengalpattu at 16.40 hours, that they attempted to contact the PCO Vallipuram and that the contact could not be established on account of the telephone line not working. IT was also stated that on account of the distance from Chengalpattu to Vallipuram that is to say about 12 k.m. there was no possibility of sending a special messenger. So the telegram was sent by post on 5.6.95 and the same was delivered on 6.6.95. The learned Counsel for the opposite party would say that whatever was possible was done in this case and therefore there was no deficiency in service. No doubt there is no negligence or malice or fraud on the part of the officers involved in the process of delivery of the telegram but the deficiency in service arises on account of the non-working of the telephone line. The telephone connection between Chengalpattu and the neighbouring villages was cut for more than a day which is hard to understand.

THE question of responsibility of the Telegraph Department in case of failure of equipment has been already considered by this Cornmission in several judgments namely in A. No. 4/96 [II (1996) CPJ 258] and A. No. 16/95. It has been held that Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act exonerates the Department only in case of an officer failing in his duty. But when there is any loss or damage occurring for any other reason and more specially of its own equipment the Department is not exonerated. THErefore for the deficiency in service namely the belated delivery of the telegram the department is certainly liable to pay compensation. THErefore the finding of the District Forum is just and valid and does not warrant any Interference. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No. cost. Appeal dismissed.