A RAJU Vs. POST MASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The complainant is an Economics Graduate, who was unemployed. He had registered his name with the Employment Exchange of Hosur. His name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. at Hosur for a clerical post and M/s. Ashok Layland Ltd. issued a telegram to the complainant on 19.11.91 at 16.35 hours from Hosur Post Office directing him to appear before the Executive (Personnel) at 2.00 p. m. on 20.11.91. The telegram was received on 23.11.91 at 3.00 p. m. The complainant could not go for the interview. He, thus, lost the valuable opportunity of getting an employment with a salary of Rs.2,250/- p. m. He has also lost the seniority in the Employment Exchange. The complainant has expected to put loss of income, mental agony and he has filed this complaint for compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

(3.) The opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a consumer, as the telegram has been sent by M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. It is, further, averred that as the line was out of order and the Trunk call did not mature, the message could not be transmitted on 19.11.91. On opening of the office on 20.11.91, the message was tried, but could not be transmitted as the line continued to be out of order till 5.00 p. m. Since 21.11.91 was a telegraph holiday, the telegram was, therefore, sent through post on 22.11.91. There was no deficiency in service. The quantum of compensation claimed is also denied and disputed.