UNION OF INDIA Vs. A SITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) His appeal arises against the order of District Forum, Thane dated 30.4.92 passed in Complaint No.148/91. A complaint was lodged before the District Forum alleging the deficiency in the service of the Postal Department in not delivering the telegram in time. The complainant alleged that her 17 years old daughter alone had gone to Hyderabad and she was to inform the complainant about her safe arrival at Hyderabad by telegram. The complainant's daughter booked the telegram from Hyderabad with the postal authorities on 4.5,91 at 9.00 a. m. to be delivered to the complainant at Dombivali. The said telegram wag received by Post Master, Kalyan on 4.5.91 and it was delivered to the complainant after two, days i. e.6.5.91 at 12.30 p. m. According to the complainant, since she could not receive the-telegram from hers daughter about her safe arrival at Hyderabad she suffered great mental tension and had to make frantic telephone calls on STD to Hyderabad. The complainant, therefore, claimed Rs.25000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards the expenses of telephone charges. The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite party to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant.

(2.) After hearing Ms. R. N. Oza, Advocate for appellant, we have admitted this appeal on the limited point of quantum. The only point therefore, arises for our consideration is whether the amount of Rs.2000/- granted by the District Forum as compensation is reasonable.

(3.) The complainant had claimed Rs. .25000/- as compensation and also Rs.500/- as expenses. According to Ms. Oza, grant of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and expenses of Rs.500/- is excessive. We see no merit in this argument since the anxiety and mental tension which the mother had suffered about the safe arrival of her young daughter at Hyderabad cannot be measured in terms of money. There is obviously delay and, therefore, one can imagine the anxiety on the part of the mother to know about the safety of her daughter. Considering the delay and sufferings of respondent, we find that there is nothing to reduce the quantum of compensation granted by the District Forum. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.