TELEGRAPH MASTER O BELGAUM Vs. E F DSILVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of an order passed by the District Forum, Belgaum in complaint No.12/1990 on the file. They arise in this way:-

(2.) Mr. E. F. D'silva has a son by name Mr. Nivard Anthoni D'silva who had applied for the post of Aerodrome Officer in National Air Port Authority. He took the written test and appeared for the interview. He was selected and appointed to that post by an order dated 1.11.1989 He was to report for duty on 27.11.1989 at Allahabad. Exhibit P1 was received by Mr. E. F. D'silva on 6.11.1989 In the meantime, Nivard Anthoni D'silva had joined the M. B. A. Course in Birla Institute at Ranchi. Mr. E. F. D'silva sent a telegram on 8.11.1989 as per Exhibit P3 asking his son to return immediately with original certificates after taking 10 days leave and stating that he may have to report at Allahabad on 23.11.1989. The said Telegram was tendered in the Telegraph Office at Tilakwadi, Belgaum. But the said Telegram was delivered to Nivard Anthoni D'silva on 25.11.1989. So it was not possible for him to collect all the documents, undergo medical examination and report for duty at Allahabad on 27.11.1989. Hence. Mr. E. F. D'silva filed a complaint before the District Forum, Belgaum against the Telegraph Master, Tilakwadi and Divisional Officer, Tele- graph Traffic, Belgaum for compensation of Rs.99,900/- alleging that due to the negligence of the Department in causing delay in delivery of the telegram, his son had lost a golden opportunity of joining the Government service as Aerodrome Officer

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the Telegraph Department by contending inter alia, that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') are not applicable in view of Sec.7 (b) of Indian Telegraph Act regarding arbitration; that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act; that the complainant and his son are only to be blamed for their negligence in that the complainant's son failed to furnish his address at Ranchi to National Airport Authority; that he could have kept all the documents with him ready and should not have left any document at Belgaum; that the complainant could have contacted his son at Ranchi when he did not receive a reply telegram from his son within a week and that the complainant's son could have travelled from Ranchi to Allahabad and reported for duty on the 27th; that as the Telegram had to pass through several Telegraph Offices, the delay is inevitable and that the amount of compensation claimed is speculative.