TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER vs Raju

THE opposite parties appeal.

THE case of the complainant was as follows: - On 28.8.1996 a telegram was sent through CTO Pondicherry to his sister''s daughter residing in France conveying the death message of his father. That telegram did not reach the addressee and when he complained on 23.9.1996 to the CTO the same was acknowledged first. THEn on 12.12.1996 he received a letter from CTO stating that the non-delivery of the telegram was due to a regrettable error of service. THE complainant, therefore, prayed as follows: - (i) Permit the complainant to get refund of the amount of Rs. 40/- paid by him as telegram charges; (ii) Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as damages towards mental torture and agony suffered by the complainant; (iii) Direct the opposite parties to pay the cost of the complaint.

The first opposite party has explained in detail that the telegram sent by the complainant got mixed up with another telegram in their computer system and that in that process the telegram sent by the complainant was lost. They therefore, pleaded that there was no negligence on their part and the telegram was lost in transmission due to technical fault.

The District Forum after hearing the parties passed the following order: - The opposite parties shall pay to the complainant: (a) Rs. 40/- towards the telegram charges paid by him; (b) A sum of Rs.3,000/-as compensation; and (c) Rs. 200/- as cost; (d) The amounts be paid within a month from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the same shall carry an interest at 12% p.a.

THE learned Counsel for the opposite parties would contend that the grant of compensation was not legal since compensation is due under Section 14(1)(d) only in case of negligence and that in this case there was no negligence whatsoever on their part, that on the contrary the telegram got lost on account of technical failure. The District Forum has observed that the error committed by the opposite parties cannot ordinarily happen in a computer and that the opposite parties were liable for non-transmission of telegram whether it be the mistake of the computer or negligence of the staff. This is not sustainable in law. The observation of the District Forum would be proper for a finding of deficiency of service opening the right for refund of charges under Section 14(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. But for granting the compensation for loss, which is possible only under Section 14(1)(d), a finding of negligence is a must. The purpose of the consumer law is not to provide compensation for every person for any loss sustained by him which is within the realm of the law of torts, but to protect the whole body of consumers against the acts of deficiency and negligence in the provision of services. In this case there is no finding of negligence by the District Forum and there is no allegation of negligence by the complainant. We do not find also after hearing the parties that there is any negligence. Therefore, the grant of compensation will have to be set aside.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Clause (b) contained in para 6 of the order of the District Forum granting a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation is set aside. The rest of the order is confirmed. No cost. Appeal partly allowed.