SUPERINTENDENT OF TELEGRAPHIC OFFICE TUTICORIN vs K.ANDI DHEVAR

THIS appeal is by the opposite party the Superintendent, Telegraph Office, Tuticorin against whom an award had been passed by the District Forum. One Antony Raj has sent a telegram from Tuticorin on 26.11.1995 to the complainant''s son who was at Rajapayalam. The message was "Your Father Andi Thevar Admitted in Hospital, Start Immediately". But the message delivered to the son of the complainant was "Your father Andi Thevar Admitted/Hospital, Start Immediately. Your Father Andi Thevar Expired." According to the complainant because of the message delivered to his son, his son as well as about 200 of his relatives who were all with mental agony, shock and distress came to Tuticorin. THIS happened only because of the negligence on the part of the employees of the opposite party. On these grounds the complaint was filed.

THE opposite party contended that it was only while the subject matter of the message was recorded and repeated a mistake had arisen, and further according to the Statutory Rules and Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the opposite party is not liable for any compensation. The District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It ordered that compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the complainant and also a cost of Rs. 500/-.

Now in the appeal, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant /opposite party that the order of the District Forum is against Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Rule 5 of the Indian Telegraph Rules and therefore the compensation awarded is not sustainable. Now Rule 5 of the Indian Telegraph Rules 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."

IT is not the case of the complainant that the wrong message given was intentional. IT must be due to an error or mistake on the part of the opposite party the wrong message had been given. But such mistake or errors are covered by said Rule 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Even though Rule 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act has been pleaded in the written version, the District Forum has not considered this at all. Therefore as rightly contended by the learned Counsel the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained as correct. In this view of the matter 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.