- (1.) THE opposite parties are the appellants. The complainant is employed as an Office Assistant. His brother -in -law Srinivasa Perumal died on 15.11.1997 at Udayarpatti and this information was conveyed to the complainant by an express telegram on 16.11.1997. But the telegram was delivered to the complainant only on 19.11.1997 though it was received by the Department on 17.11.1997 itself. Because of the inordinate delay, the complainant was unable to see the mortal remains of his brother -in -law. Thus there was deficiency in service. The complainant has suffered mental agony and torture. Hence this complaint.
(2.) THE opposite parties contended as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. It is true that a telegram was booked at Tirunelveli under Serial R7 dated 16.11.1997 destined to Soosainagar. The said telegram was received on the forenoon of 17.11.1997. On account of the urgent outgoing calls to Devikapuram, the message was posted from Polur to Devikapuram and the same was returned by post to Polur on 18.11.1997 and that message was again posted direct to Soosainagar and delivered on 19.11.1997. Since late fee was not sufficent to cater to the destination, the message was tried on 19.11.1997. But due to the telephone lines unget, the message was posted to Soosainagar on 19.11.1997 and was received at Soosainagar on 20.11.1997 and it could not be delivered to the addressee due to his absence and the house was locked from 20.11.1997 to 30.11.1997. The message was delivered on 1.12.1997 to the addressee on his arrival. Hence there was no deficiency.
(3.) THE lower Forum held that there was deficiency in service and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - as damages for the mental agony and torture and Rs. 5,00/ - as costs. Hence this appeal. A telegram containing the message of death which was booked at Tirunelveli on 16.11.1997 and which was received at Polur on 17.11.1997 was actually delivered to the complainant only on 19.11.97. If the telegrams are to be despatched with such a delay, there is no purpose in having such a service. It is to convey an urgent message, the telegram is resorted to. One cannot expect everyone to have a telephone connection in his house. Especially people living in villages to a large extent depend only on postal service. When the sevice so rendered by them is deficient, naturally, everyone would feel aggrieved by the same. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon the conditions printed for acceptance of a telegram. It is no doubt stated in the conditions for acceptance of a telegram printed at the back of every telegram form that it is issued in accordance with the rules for Inland Telegrams published in the Telegraph Guide and with the provisions of Indian Telegraph Rules and that the Director General is not liable to make any compensation for any loss, injury or damage arising or resulting from non -transmission, non -delivery or wrong delivery of the Telegram or delay, error or omissions in the transmission or delivery thereof . By merely printing such a class, we do not think that the Telegraph Department can just shrug their shoulders, in helplessness. It is to be pointed out in particular that such a stand was not taken either in the Grounds of Appeal or in their version. It is only now raised at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The relevant Telegraph Rules and Guide referred to in the conditions are not produced. Further, a villager in a hurry especially when he is in such a distressed state of mind, when he is sending a message of death, one cannot expect him to go through all the conditions printed especially in small letters in the telegram form and satisfy himself about it. The villagers normally will have neither the time nor the patience or the learning to go through the conditions. Moreover, here in this case, the telegram has been booked on 16.11.1997. It was booked as an urgent telegram. Therefore, one would expect that to be delivered within 48 hours. But what has happened here is somthing unusual. The telegram was received at Polur on 17.11.1997. Even assuming that there was some defect in transmitting the message, even if they had sent the telegram by a messenger, it would have reached the person much earlier. On the other hand, we find that there has been utter negligence and wanton delay. The explanation given by the opposite parties in their version only further accentuates their deficiency. They admit the receipt and booking of the express telegram on 16.11.1997 at Tirunelveli and the receipt of the same at Polur on 17.11.1997. They say that because there were urgent outgoing calls from Devikapuram, the message was posted from Polur to Devikapuram which was returned by post to Polur on 18.11.1997 and that message was again posted direct to Soosainagar and delivered on 19.11.97. Since late fee was not sufficient to cater to the destination, the message was tried on 19.11.1997. Instead of posting the message to Devikapuram they should have done the posting of the message to Soosainagar at the first instance itself. But that has not been done. If it was really on account of the difficuly in getting lines or the lines were busy and crowded, they could have at least seen to it that it is sent by a special messenger or they should have given priority to the same and taken necesary steps to reach the telegram to the addressee on the same day viz 17.11.1997 itself or at least on 18.11.1997. Thus we find that there has been a wilful carelessness and wanton negligence on the part of the opposite parties which, in the circumstances, would amount to gross deficiency in service. One cannot appreciate the Department throwing the rule book at the customer. It is not definitely a valid defence. Their service has become a mirage in this case. An express telegram sent is delivered only after 4 days. It speaks volume of deficiency in service and indifference of the people manning the Department. Therefore, we do not find any reason to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants nor do we find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower Forum.;