By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant is that the complainant is an engineering graduate and he had registered his name with ODEPC, Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of getting employment in abroad and he was directed to appear on 10.2.07 for an interview with documents by way of a Telegram on 8.2.07. It reached Irinjalakuda Telegraph Office on 9.2.07 and the BSNL authorities put it in an ordinary cover and sent to the complainant by ordinary post. Because of the negligent act of the authorities the telegram reached the complainant only on 12.2.07 whereas the interview was on 10.2.07. This act of the respondent is a deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of respondent is that considering the difficulties experienced by Telecom Circles for transfer of telegrams meant for delivery to the respective Post and Telegraph Offices the Corporate Office of the respondent directed all Telegraph Offices of BSNL to resort to posting of telegram under certificate of posting direct to the addressee invoking the provisions of Rule 84, 117, 118 and 121 of Indian Telegraph Rules instead of routing to combined offices. Hence the Superintendent, Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Irinjalakuda Division vide order dated 19.9.06 ordered to withdraw telegraph facility from all combined offices of Irinjalakuda Division except Chalakudy H.O. with effect from 1.10.06. Since 1.10.06 none of the offices in Irinjalakuda Division of the Postal Department except Chalakudy H.O. is accepting telegraph messages for delivery. It is true that telegram booked at Thiruvananthapuram at 19.12 on 8.2.07 was received at 10.59 a.m. on 9.2.07 in the Telegraph Office, Irinjalakuda. It was addressed to the complainant. The delivery area is beyond the free delivery area. The address did not contain the telephone number of the complainant. There was no instruction from the sender of the telegram nor he had paid any charge to effect delivery by special messenger. Hence as per the existing facilities, instructions from the Corporation Office of the respondent and as per Telegraph Rules it was posted on the same date of receipt to the addressee in his known address. In these circumstances it is clear that the respondent is not responsible for the delay if any caused. The BSNL office at Irinjalakuda has done the true, correct and proper thing in sending the message by post. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. The sender of the telegram had been well informed of these facts and the maximum possible delay in delivering the message by the office accepting the telegram. The sender is expected to know the delay that would be caused in sending messages by telegram. The possibility of the sender deliberately delaying delivery of the message also cannot be ruled out since he has opted the telegram facility fully knowing the possible delay in delivering the telegram. The sender of the telegram has not made any complaint in the matter till date. The complainant is not a consumer and there is no offer made by the respondent to the complainant. There is no consideration paid or promised by the complainant. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from the respondent?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3 and Exts. R1 to R5. No oral evidence adduced by both.
5. Points: It is the case of complainant that he is an engineering graduate and had registered his name with ODEPC, Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of getting employment in abroad and was directed to appear on 10.2.07 for an interview with documents by way of a Telegram on 8.2.07. It was reached Irinjalakuda Telegraph Office on 9.2.07 and the authorities treated the same very negligently. He states that because of the negligent attitude of the BSNL authorities the telegram reached very lately and he had lost his opportunity to appear for the interview.
6. In the counter the respondent stated that considering the difficulties experienced by Telecom Circles the telegram facility has been withdrawn vide order dated 19.9.06 from all combined offices of Irinjalakuda Division except Chalakudy H.O. with effect from 1.10.06. According to them, since 1.10.06 none of the offices in Irinjalakuda Division of the Postal Department except Chalakudy H.O. is accepting telegraph messages for delivery.
7. The respondent produced Ext. R1 to R5 documents to prove their contentions. Ext. R2 is the copy of circular issued by BSNL Corporate Office to All Telecom Circles stated that the last BSNL’s Telegraph Office may resort to posting of telegram as a last resort under posting certificate direct to addressee instead of routing to CO’s under their jurisdiction by invoking Indian Telegraph Rules 84, 117, 121 & 122. Ext. R4 is a letter showing the withdrawal of telegram facility from combined offices having less than 10’C messages per day. It is stated in Ext. R4 that the telegram facility will stand withdrawn from all existing combined offices of Irinjalakuda Division except Chalakudy HO with effect from 1.10.06. It is also stated in the letter that the telegrams received by post should be treated at par with letters and should bear postage stamp of required value as decided by the Department from time to time. From this letter it can be realized that the telegram facility will stand withdrawn from all the existing combined offices of Irinjalakuda Division except Chalakudy HO. The telegram was sent from Thiruvananthapuram and it was the duty of them to intimate the sender the matter of withdrawing the telegraph facility in that office. The sender who is unknown sent the telegram to respondent office. Even if withdrawn the telegram facility, the respondent done their maximum to deliver the letter to the complainant. It is stated that the addressee did not contain the telephone number of the complainant. If there was telephone number they will definitely intimate the matter over telephone. It is also stated that the charge to effect delivery by special messenger is not paid by the sender. So they put it in a cover and sent to the complainant by ordinary post. As per the documents produced by respondent there was no telegram facility with effect from 1.10.06. There is no deficiency in service from the part of respondent. It was the duty of Thiruvananthapuram Office from where the telegram was sent to intimate to the sender the withdrawing of telegram facility in Irinjalakuda Division. There is no negligence on the part of respondent.
7. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of October 2010.
