T N SHARMA vs CONSUMER DIST REDRESSAL FORUM

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 23. 3. 1992 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint case No. 53/92 dismissing the complaint.

THERE is no one from either side. Looking to the nature of the case and this appeal being 14 years old, it was deemed appropriate to decide the appeal on merit. Subsequently, perused the grounds of appeal, the impugned judgment and order and other materials available on the record. The matter needs adjudication on two grounds, one whether the finding of the learned District Forum holding that the complainant is not a consumer, is a sustainable finding in law; secondly, if not so whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation.

Admittedly, the complainant''s son Mr. Suresh Chand sent an express telegram on 30. 10. 1990 from Agra, informing the complainant to reach Agra for negotiations regarding marriage of his daughter on 2. 11. 1990, which was the scheduled date with the proposed bride groom party for carrying on the negotiations, in this connection. The telegram was sent after paying Rs. 18. 00 as consideration to the Telegraph Department and in lieu thereof receipt No. 24123 dated 30. 10. 1990 was issued. The said telegram did not reach to the complainant. With the result, he was rendered unable to participate in the negotiations regarding the marriage of his daughter which his son has fixed with the proposed bride groom party at Agra, which ultimately resulted in frustration of the negotiations coupled with the fact that his son has to cut a sorry figure whereby his prestige was undermined in the society and in the estimation of the proposed bride groom party. It is true that in the instant case, in the written statement the DTO, Hapur District Ghaziabad has stated that the telegram in question did not reach to the destination, but that everment has no relevance. Whether the context of the telegram did reach to DTO, Hapur, District Ghaziabad from the DTO, Agra, or not is a matter between the two branches of the Telegraph Department. There is no role to play in getting the context of the telegram to reach at Agra. Obviously, it was, thus, a clear case of deficiency in service. Although the loss which was occasioned cannot be appraised mathmetically and with provision, yet the matter of the settlement of the marriage of the daughter is one of the issues of a very vital importance to the daughter''s brother as well as to the parents. It is true that after the deliberations, the negotiations might have materialized or not but this much is clear that due to non-receipt of the telegram which was express telegram, the complainant was rendered unable to carry on the negotiations at the scheduled date and place which had resulted in frustration to the father as well as to his son. In the instant case, the District Forum has recorded a finding that the father of the aggrieved person son, cannot file a complaint as he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Surprisingly, this approach of the District Forum was totally in utter disregard of the statutory provision and was based on mis-reading of the relevant provisions occurring in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) Sub-clause (i) speaks that the consumer is a person who hires or avails any service for a consideration which includes any beneficiary of such service other than person who hires or avails of the service (emphasis our own ). This section thus, makes it exhaustively clear that it is not only a person who hires or avails the service for a consideration but it includes any beneficiary of such service as well. The telegram was regarding the marriage negotiations. Obviously the father who is the complainant in the instant case was the beneficiary of such hiring of service by the sond for consideration. The factum of the payment of Rs. 18. 00 as consideration which was charged for the ''express telegram'' has not been denied and that is also supported by the documentary evidence which is mentioned above. Over and above, in the written statment the respondent has admitted by the letter dated 27. 6. 1991 which was issued by the Chief Telegraph Office, Agra in which it has been admitted that the complaint regarding non-receipt of the telegram can be seen by the sender or addressee. In the instant case, addressee is the faher who is in the instant case, is a complainant. Thus, findings of the complaint being dismissed are not maintainable. The findings are legally not sustainable and deserve to be set aside. The complaint deserves to be allowed.

THEN comes the case for our judicious consideration, as to what amount be awarded in the instant case towards compensation. The complainant is a retired Sub Post Master, he would definitely be keen to marry his daughter which he was to perform after his retirement. The volume of mental agony in such case will definitely be on the higher side. In this situation, thus, taking the over all view of the matter, we are of the view that it should be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 as compensation along with Rs. 18. 00 as well as Rs. 1,000. 00 as cost of the complaint proceeding. Since this rightful claim was not allowed, the complainant was also entitled interest @ 18% on the awarded Rs. 5000. 00. Appeal allowed.