ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF TELEGRAPH TRAFFIC Vs. SAKTHIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the opposite party Telegraph Department against which an award has been passed by the District Forum. The case of the complainant is that one Ms. Amarjothi has sent a telegram from Madurai to the complainant there in at Villupuram on 20.8.1995 at 6 p. m. According to the complainant, the telegram should have reached him in the night on 20.8.1995 or the next day, but it was delivered to him only on 24.8.1995 at 10 a. m. The message was a death message. Because of the late delivery of the telegram, the complainant could not be present for the funeral and the person deceased was the complainant's paternal uncle's wife. Due to this, the complainant was very much worried. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint was filed.

(2.) The opposite party contended that the address given in the telegram was insufficient and the door number was not given, and therefore two times the telegram was taken by the messenger but they could not find the addressee at the given address. But subsequently, with the help of the postal people, the messenger could get at the complainant to deliver the telegram to him. It was further pleaded that in view of Sec.9 of the Indian Telegraph Act the opposite party cannot be held liable to pay any compensation.

(3.) The District Forum, on consideration of pleadings and evidence, accepted the case of the complainant that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On this finding, it ordered the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.