Date of Hearing: 9th Day of September, 2015
Date of Judgment: Wednesday, the 16th September, 2015
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal u/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is at the instance of the Complainant himself with a prayer for modification of Judgment/Final Order dated the 20th May, 2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-II (In short, DCDRF) in Consumer Complaint No.436/2014.
The Appellant being Complainant initiated the Consumer Complaint u/s. 12 of the Act alleging on 14.07.2013 which was the last day of Telegraph Service in India has decided to celebrate farewell of the service and being part of the historic moment has sent 4 (Four) Telegrams to his most beloved and admirable person in the society through Central Telegraph Office, Kolkata to (1) Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, (2) Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of West Bengal, (3) his mother, Smt. Jyotsna Sarkar, and (4) his sister, Smt. Nayana Guha Majumdar. It has been alleged that those telegrams were not reached to the Recipients. Hence, the complaints for compensation of Rs.50,000/- each for each telegram totalling of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- only for deficiency in rendering service.
The Opposite Parties by filing a Written Version disputed the claim contending inter-alia that the Complainant booked all the 4(Four) Telegrams on 14th July, 2013 which was the last day of Telegram Service System in India and out of the said four Telegrams, 2(Two) Telegrams which were sent to Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of West Bengal were duly delivered. However, those Telegrams could not be sent upon Smt. Jyotsna Sarkar and Smt. Nayana Guha Majumdar as they were beyond the delivery area of C.T.O., Kolkata. It has been submitted that the allegation of deficiency in service does not arise at all.
Upon hearing the Parties and on having look to the materials on record the Ld. DCDRF by the impugned order allowed the complaint with cost of Rs.1,000/- and further directed the Opposite Parties jointly to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant for not rendering proper service and for causing mental pain and agony and harassment to the Complainant.
On close scrutiny of the materials on record it comes to surface that on 14.07.2013 was the last day of the Telegraph service in India. On that date the Complainant sent 4(Four) Nos. of Telegram from C.T.O., Kolkata to – (1) Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, (2) Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of West Bengal, (3) Smt. Jyotsna Sarkar, mother of the Complainant and (4) Smt. Nayana Guha Majumdar, sister of the Complainant on proper receipt.
Though the Complainant alleged that none of the telegrams reached to the recipients for which he sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- each but Annexure-A&B to the Written Version clearly indicate that the telegrams were duly received by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of West Bengal. Annexure-D clearly indicates that there was a circular of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited that telegrams for delivery beyond the Delivery Area i.e. 8(Eight) Kilo meters of the destination from telegraph office will send by ordinary post only and BSNL will not be held responsible for any delay for non-delivery of such telegram.
On behalf of the respondent it has categorically submitted that the telegram addressed to Hon’ble Prime Minister of India was transmitted to New Delhi Telegraph Office through Web Based Telegraph Massaging System. The second Telegram sent to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of West Bengal through Telegraph Messenger as it was within the delivery area of C.T.O. of Kolkata. However, the third and fourth addressee who were mother and sister respectively of the Complainant although being residents of Kolkata were beyond the delivery area of CTO, Kolkata in as much as there was no telegraph office nearest to the said two addressee as per order No.33-2/T-1/TO-CO/05(Pt.-I) dated 20.09.2011 issued by Corporate Office of the BSNL (Annexure-‘C’).
Therefore, in accordance with the said order those two telegrams were sent by ordinary post and as such, no proof of delivery will be available.
The above scenario makes it abundantly clear that in accordance with the condition embodied in the order of B.S.N.L. there was hardly any scope on the part of the Respondent to prove the delivery of those telegrams by way of any document. However, it has been proved that the telegram sent to addressee No.1&2 had been duly received by their office.
In that perspective, the question in deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents does not arise at all. Since no appeal has been preferred on behalf of the BSNL authority, we do not find any reason in examining the same but at the same time we do not find any shortcoming or loophole on the part of the Respondents in sending telegrams of the Complainant to all the 4(Four) addressee on the last day of Telegraph Service in India on 14.07.2013 and as such we do not find any reason to modify the order to enhance the compensation.
For the reason aforesaid, the appeal being a meritless one, deserves dismissal. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not make any order as to costs in this appeal.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
