NANAKSAR ROAD CARRIERS Vs. PIONEER SUITINGS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -the opposite party before the District Forum, Ajmer has filed this appeal against the order dated 13-5-1991 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No.743/1990. By the impugned order the appellant was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant-respondent within a period of one month. The complainant alleged in the complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) that his brother-in-law sent an urgent telegram from Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) on 21-8-1990 informing him that the Law Examination is on 24th. The matter written in the telegram was this: "law Examination twenty fourth August". The aforesaid telegram was delivered to the complainant on 5-9- 1990. He contacted the Telegraph Department. He was told that a second message was called and in that twenty fourth August was written. He has stated that Law Examination on 24th had already been completed and the telegram was delivered to him on 5-9-1990 i. e.15 days after the date of sending it and he was deprived of appearing at the Law Examination and he lost his one year. The examination fee amounting to Rs.450/- deposited by him had gone waste. He talked on phone on 5-9-1990 at Lucknow and he was told that examinations are over and he was told that a telegram was sent to him on 21-8-1990 and as to why he had not reached. He filed this complaint praying for the award of Rs.5,534/-. He has claimed Rs.5,000/- as compensation as he had lost his one year, Rs.450/- deposited for examination fee, Rs.50/- as phone charges and the amount paid for sending the telegram was also sought to be refunded. Rs.25/- were claimed for expenses of the complaint. A copy of the telegram has been submitted.

(2.) Version of the case dated 30-10-1990 was filed. It was admitted that the telegram dated 21-8- 90 from Lucknow was received by the Ajmer office on 23-8-1990 which was not clear. There- upon the opposite party sent a service telegram on 23-8-1990 vide telegram No. T/15-30 for sending clear and correct address. As reply was not received on 25-8-1990 a reminder was sent. But no reply was received. Again on 27-8-1990 vide T/16- 30 dated 27-8-1990 service telegram was sent. Request to send the correct address contained in the telegram and also the subject matter. It was on 5-9-1990 that Lucknow office sent the teeing which was received on 5-9-90 at 16.32 hours and so it was delivered on 5-9- 90 at 18-15 and distributed at 22 hours. It was stated that the delay in delivering the telegram was caused on account of technical mistake and there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party. It was submitted that under Rule 6 of the Telegraph Rules, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation, and at the most he can be refunded the amount spent for sending the telegram. The opposite party submitted the pro forma blank form of the telegram as well as the copies of the telegrams which were sent to Lucknow. However, on 7-5-1991 an application was submitted raising a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. The District Forum after hearing the arguments passed the impugned order directing the opposite party-appellant to pay Rs.2,000/- within one month from the date of the order. Rest of the claim of the complainant was dismissed. Aggrieved the Opposite party-appellant has filed this appeal. The District Forum held as under:-

(3.) Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. We heard Mr. U. D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sharma did not assail the finding of the District Forum when it held that complainant is a consumer. He even did not take the ground in the memo of appeal that for the reasons mentioned by the opposite party-appellant in its application dated 7-5-1991 the complainant is not a consumer.