DEVINDER BANSAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Referred Judgements :-
M/S KASTURI LAL RALIA RAM JAIN V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
DR. NAGAPPA ALVA AND OTHERS
LAKHI PRASAD V. MURLIDHAR
SMT. RAMSURAT DEVI V. SMT. SATRAJI KAUR AND OTHERS
JAMUNA BEHARANI ETC. V. PATARALA POLAYYA DESIBEHRA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)In this Regular Second Appeal, the appellant-plaintiff, Sh. Devinder Bansal, has assailed the decree and judgment dated 22.9.1980 of District Judge, Solan Division at Solan, whereby the decree and judgment dated 30.7.1978 of Senior Sub-Judge, Solan, was set aside and his suit was dismissed.
(2.)Sh. Devinder Bansal in his suit filed in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge prayed for a decreed of Rs. 500/- with costs by way of damages suffered by him as a result of negligence of the officials of Post and Telegraph Department. As per the allegations made in the plaint, the daughter of Sh. Devinder Bansal, who was studying in Birla Balika Vidya Pith, Pilani, in the year 1977 was to arrive at Delhi on 28th November by Chetak Express. She had gone to Jaipur to attend a N.C.C. Camp organized by the School. As the camp was extended for a day, the Principal of the school sent a telegram to Sh. Devinder Bansal on 26.11.1977 from Jaipur informing him that his daughter was reaching on 29.11.1977 by Chetak Express instead of 28th November, 1976. Although the telegram was received by the Telegraph office at Solan on 27.11.1977, yet it was delivered to Sh. Devinder Bansal on 29.11.1977 at 12.00 Noon. Sh. Devinder Bansal had already left for Delhi on 28.11.1977 and when he did not find his daughter, he was put to great tension and harassment. He made several telephonic calls and incurred other expenses to know the where about of his daughter till he was informed of the message given by the telegram in question. He tried to ventilate his grievance by making a representation to the Superintendent Telegraphs Traffic, Himachal Division, Dharamshala who assured him that after enquiry necessary action will be taken against the official found responsible for the delay in the delivery of the telegram. When no action was taken, She devinder Bansal instituted the present suit.
(3.)The respondents-defendants, Union of India and another, resisted the suit. Besides raising the preliminary objection, it was stated that the telegram was delivered late because the place of destination was wrongly described in the telegram. The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 150/- holding the officials of Union of India negligent. The District Judge in the appeal filed by the Union of India, set aside the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.