UNION OF INDIA Vs. TEJ BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 1st November, 1994 of the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur reversing the decision of the District Forum, Shri Ganga Nagar date 16.7.1992 and granting an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.

(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass and may be notice. An Express Telegram was sent on 20th of July, 1991 to the Complainant from Delhi intimating him regarding the death of one of his near relations. That telegram was received at Shri Ganga Nagar Telegraph Office at 10.28 p.m. on 20th July, 1991, and was delivered on 5.00 p.m. on 22nd July, 1991. The Complainant alleged that on account of late delivery, he could not reach Delhi to pay his homage and to have last darshan of his deceased relative and thus he suffered mental agony and loss of reputation in his society. The Complainant claimed Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. In its written version the Petitioners herein (Opposite Parties) pleaded that the delay in delivery of the telegram was on account of the fact that on 20th July, 1991 when the telegram was received the Telegraph employees had already left for distribution of other telegrams received earlier and therefore it was given to another person for distribution on 21st July, 1991 but he could not deliver the same on account of the fact that he could not locate the addressee living in a new unauthorised colony having no house numbers mentioned on the property. It was further pleaded that another attempt was made for distribution on 22nd July, 1991 with the help of local Postman and thus the telegram was delivered on 22nd July, 1991 at about 5.00 p.m.

(3.) SECTION 9 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 clearly lays down that the Petitioners herein are not responsible to make any payment of any compensation for loss, damage or injury as a result of not transmitting, not distributing of any telegram or delay in its transmitting or distribution or for any fault or mistake. The liability is only if the Complainant proves that the negligence on the part of the Government or its officials was with malafide intention or in collusion with somebody. The Complainant has filed only his own affidavit whereas affidavits of both the Telegram Delivery Men have been filed by the Petitioners herein. The Complainant did not state any facts relating to the negligence of the Department with malafide intention or any collusion with somebody. Unless it was established that the delay in delivery of the telegram was a mischievous act or there was any malafide on the part of the Department, there was no liability of the Petitioners herein. This Commission has taken the consistent view in such matters that the Government is not liable to make payment of compensation arising or resulting from any failure of service affecting transmission or delay in delivery of telegram unless it is established that there was mala fide intention or collusion. The State Commission has thus exercised jurisdiction with material illegality in reversing the well-considered decision of the District Forum. The Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the State Commission dated 1st of November, 1994 is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored leaving the parties to bear their own costs.