SECRETARY DEPTT OF TELECOM Vs. CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT -complainant preferred a complaint before the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Protection Commission, Jammu. His case was that due to negligence of the employees of respondent No. 1 and 2, a telegram meant for him was not delivered to him in time. The telegram was received in the office of the respondent No. 2 on 16th Feb. 1998. This was wrongly sent to some other person on 17th Feb. 1998. It is on account of this factor, the respondent complainant was unable to get the job which he would have got had he appeared in the office from which the telegram was issued. It is stated that on account of the lapse of the respondents the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 15 lacs. The Commission has come to the conclusion that there was definite negligence on the part of the officers of respondents. One Mi. Jailakhani, an employee of the respondents was found to be guilty of this lapse. It was accordingly directed that respondent Chaman Lal be paid the compensation of Rs. 3000/ -. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge.

(2.) THE learned counsel for Union of India submits that on account of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act, there is an immunity to Union of India from being pursued in a Court of law. It is submitted that even if there is some remiss -ness on the part of officials of the department, even then on account of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Telegraph Act. So proceedings for damages can be initiated. For this, reliance is being placed on certain judgments. These have been given under Section 7 of the Post Office Act. It is submitted that these provisions are in para -materia and therefore, what has been said by various judicial authorities would apply to the facts of this case also.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported as The Presidency Post Master and anr. V. Dr. U. Shanker Rao II (1993) CPJ 141, Senior Post Master. G.P.O., Pune v. Akhil Bhatratiya Grahak Panchayat and anr. II (1995) CPJ 230 and The Post Master, Imphal and ors V. Jamini Devi Sagolband, I (2000) CPJ 28.