SUPERINTENDT OF POSTS And TELEGRAMS, GADAG DIVISION vs KRISHNAMURTHY PARATHASARATHY

THE respondent was working as Second Division Assistant in the Court of the JMFC, Gadag. On 5.4.1990 he sent a telegram to Munsiff & JMFC, Haveri, requesting for time to file objections to the petition. He delivered the telegram at 10.30 a.m. and it should have reached Haveri by 1.30 p.m. But it was actually delivered at 5.10 p.m. on that day. Hence, he filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the menial agony suffered by him.

THE complaint was resisted by the Telegraph Department by contending inter alia that it is not liable to pay compensation for any loss, injury or damage resulting from any failure of service affecting transmission or delivery of the telegram as per the clause printed in the Telegram form, Exhibit b(1). THE complainant gave evidence and on behalf of the respondent one witness was examined. On the said evidence, the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 200/- and costs of Rs. 50/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment. Hence, this appeal by the Telegraph Department. THE question is whether the Order of the District Forum awarding compensation is proper. Mr. VP. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the complainant has not stated in his evidence that he suffered any loss, or injury due to the delay of few hours in delivering the telegram in the Court of the JMFC, Haveri, and so he is not entitled to any compensation. Under Section 14(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 compensation may be awarded to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. In this case, admittedly the telegram was booked at 10.30 a.m. on 5.4.1990 and it reached the Court of the JMFC, Haveri at 5.10 p.m. on that day. DW1 has admitted that in the normal course, the telegram from Gadag to Haveri takes one hour. So there has been a delay of about 6 hours in delivering the telegram. From the mere delay the consumer will not be entitled to any compensation. He must show that he has suffered some loss or injury due to that delay. The complainant has simply stated that the Munsif told him that he did not send any telegram at all and therefore he was put to mental agony and there was likelihood of his superiors misunderstanding him. He has not stated that the enquiry was decided in his absence and that he was put to any loss or injury. Under the circumstances, the Order of the District Forum awarding compensation of Rs. 200/- cannot be sustained.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Order of the District Forum is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.