INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT Vs. DIWAKAR DANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants which were opposite parties before the District Forum against order dated 23. 3. 07 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur II in Complaint No. 669/2006 by which the complaint of the complainant-respondents was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay to the complainant-respondents a sum of Rs. 425 + 24,348 in all Rs. 24,773 within two months and if the above amount was not paid within two months the appellants were further directed to pay interest @ 9% p. a. from the date of passing of the order and further the appellants were directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as costs to the complainant-respondents.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: that the complainant-respondents had filed a complaint before the District Forum on 30. 6. 2006 inter alia stating that the complainant-respondent No. 2 Kamal Dangi had visited Vietnam and Bangkok (Thailand) and from Bangkok he had sent an air ticket of coming from Bangkok to Delhi through his mother who had come from Hanoi (Vietnam) to Delhi and the ticket was sent for extending the journey. It was further stated in the complaint that the said ticket after extending the journey was sent by complainant-respondent No. 1 through speed post services of the appellants on 12. 4. 2006 to Hanoi (Vietnam) where complainant respondent No. 2 was there at the following address: trinh Thi Thu Huong, to 13 Phuong Dinh Cong, quan Hoang Mai, Hanoi, Vietnam. It was further stated that for sending that envelope the appellants had charged a sum of Rs. 425 from complainant-respondent No. l. It was further stated that as per the convention, if anything is sent through speed post to abroad, that must reach to its destination within four or seven days. It was further stated that the said ticket which was sent through speed post was for the journey that was to be commenced on 26. 4. 06 from Bangkok (Thailand ) to Delhi and, therefore, the said envelope must have reached at Hanoi before 20. 4. 2006 but that had not reached there. It was further stated that the complainant-respondent No. 2 was having a ticket for the journey commencing on 25. 4. 2006 from Hanoi to Bangkok and, therefore, he had to leave Vietnam positively on 25. 4. 06 and if the ticket sent through speed post from Jaipur on 12. 4. 2006 would have reached Hanoi before 25. 4. 2006 and the complainant-respondent No. 2 would have taken the ticket with him from Hanoi to Bangkok as from that ticket flight was to be taken from Bangkok on 26. 4. 2006 and since the complainant-respondent No. 2 had a ticket for journey from Hanoi to Bangkok on 25. 4. 2006, therefore, complainant-respondent No. 2 had to leave Hanoi for Bangkok in all circumstances and even without the ticket sent from Jaipur. It was further stated that before leaving Hanoi on 25. 4. 06 the complainant-respondent No. 2 had contacted the office of the appellants at Hanoi and he was told that the ticket had not reached and thus he had to leave Hanoi on 25. 4. 2006 without the ticket and there is no dispute on the point that the ticket had reached at Hanoi on 27. 4. 2006 and before that complainant-respondent No. 2 had left Hanoi for Bangkok. Since the ticket sent from Jaipur had not reached Hanoi upto 25. 4. 2006 and since from that ticket the journey was to be taken by the complainant-respondent No. 2 from Bangkok to Delhi and therefore, he had to purchase a fresh ticket at Bangkok after paying Rs. 24,348. 48. It was further stated that on 27. 4. 2006 the ticket sent from Jaipur through speed post had reached at Hanoi and there is no dispute on that point and since the ticket sent from Jaipur had not reached at Hanoi upto 25. 4. 2006, for that deficiency this complaint was filed and further since the complainant had to purchase a fresh ticket from Vietnam to Delhi after paying a sum of Rs. 24,348. 48 , for that also the present complaint was filed by the complainants. A reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum and their case was that since the ticket in question which was sent through speed post was sent by the appellants through Singapore Airlines and if Singapore Airlines had caused delay, for that no deficiency on the part of the appellants could be attributed and further Singapore Airlines was a necessary party and further protection under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 was also sought and it was prayed that complaint be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Jaipur II through impugned order dated 23. 3. 2007 had found that since the envelope which was sent through speed post services of the appellants on 12. 4. 2006 from Jaipur to Hanoi and since it had not reached upto 25. 4. 2006 and had reached on 24. 4. 2006 thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants as the envelope sent through speed post must have reached within seven days and further since the complainant-respondent No. 2 was to leave Hanoi on 25. 4. 2006 from Hanoi to Bangkok as he had a OK ticket for that journey, therefore, he had left Hanoi without getting the ticket sent from Jaipur and he had to purchase a fresh ticket at Bangkok for his journey from Bangkok to Delhi and thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and for that deficiency the impugned order was passed by the District Forum. Agrieved from the said order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur II, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

(3.) IN this appeal the learned Counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions: