Decided on April 08,2008

Central Telegraph Office Through its Additional, Appellant
S.Sivashanmugavel Respondents


K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is for setting aside the order of dismissal of the appeal dismissed for default and to restore the appeal so that it may be heard on merits.
(2.) In the affidavit in support of the petition it is stated that the counsel who was handling the matter ceased to be a Central Government Standing Counsel and handed over the case bundle to Ministry of Law and Justice and on the advice of the said Ministry, the case was then handled by another counsel who also subsequently ceased to be a Central Government Standing Counsel. The nominated counsel did not represent the petitioners/ appellants before the Commission with the result, the appeal was dismissed for default on 21/05/2004. Thereafter, the complainant initiated execution proceedings and only at that stage, the appellant/opposite party came to know about the dismissal of the appeal for default and in the said circumstances, the application came to be taken up for restoring the appeal dismissed for default. There was delay in applying for setting aside the order of dismissal for default which was condoned on terms. The appellant also complied with the terms of the order. Having regard to what is stated above, the petition shall stand allowed.
(3.) The case of the complainant was as follows :- He booked a telegram at the telegraph office of Madurai town to be served on one Murugan, an electrical worker of Alanganallur. The telegram was transmitted to Alanganallur post office at 11.45 hours of the same day but it was not delivered to Murugan. The complainant had arranged for a meeting with the Zonal Officer of Emerald Green Forest Ltd., at Hotel Prem Nivas for an important assignment. The presence of Murugan was very much required for getting the assignment. The complainant and his wife had to make arrangements for stay in Hotel Prem Nivas and were waiting for Murugan. But, Murugan did not turn up as the message did not reach him and the arrangements went in vain. The complainant sent a letter on 16/10/2005 about the non-delivery of the telegram to the opposite party. The opposite party received it on 19/10/2005. He asked the complainant to send the original receipt which the complainant did on 25/10/2005. After receiving the original receipt, the opposite party sent a reply that the message was lost in transmission. The opposite party offered to pay the cost of the telegram collected from the complainant and send it by money order. No such money order was received by the complainant. The opposite party was bound to serve the telegram for which he had collected the charges. It was unbelievable that the message was lost in transmission. The opposite party had been negligent and careless.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.