Order-19.
Date-20/05/2015.
Complainant Kaushik Sarkar by filing this complaint has submitted that the 1st even Telegraph service was started 163 years ago in Calcutta and later to other parts of the country and since ages, it was an integrated instrument of emergency communication of our civilized society and finally this historic service had been discontinued by the Department of Telecom services as it become insignificant with the changing technologies and various other reasons. On 14.07.2013 which was the last day of Telegram services in India. So, complainant decided to celebrate the farewell of this service and take the opportunity to be a silent participant of this historic moment only by sending few telegrams (perhaps to be the last person) to his most beloved and admirable persons of his society.
On 14.07.2013 complainant sent 4 nos. telegrams content there in his best wishes along with information for being the last privilege recipient of the historic telegrams services in India and he sent 4 nos. telegrams booked from the CTO (Central Telegraph Office), Kolkata. The Honourable Prime Minister of India, the Honourable Chief Minister of West-Bengal, his respected mother Smt. Jyotsna Sarkar & his beloved sister Mrs. Nayna Guha Mazumder on proper receipt. The authority of the CTO, Kolkata informed that even in the event of booked telegrams not reached within the schedules period, a written complaint can be made within 30 days from the date it is issued. But ultimately he came to learn that the said telegrams were not reached to the recipient persons. When complainant requested for immediate intervention for proper redressal and for non-delivery of the said 4 telegrams to the addressee and lodged a complaint on 10.08.2013 which was received and again he personally went on 16.08.2013 and several other days to CTO. But on 23.08.2013 complainant submitted another complain along with the photocopies of the said receipts which was verbally requested after they received his written complain. Again complainant submitted an appeal dated 10.11.2013, received on 13.11.2013. After that complainant ran from pillar to post to get the solution but no result. Thereafter complainant asked for submitting proof of delivery of the same but authority wanted to inform that it is now withdrawn of WTMS system. But at the time of booking the said telegrams and related charges for sending those telegrams no such opinion was given that those telegrams should not be sent to the respective senders.
It is specifically mentioned that on each and every occasion all showed a cold shoulder to the complainant. Practically no amount can match with the sentiments and great opportunity what complainant missed in his entire life time which comes once in every century.
So, in the above circumstances for negligent and deficient manner of service, the complainant is entitled to compensation for not delivering the telegram in such stipulated time and giving opportunity and for mental pain and agony.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant made telegrams to 4 persons but the same were beyond the delivery area of C.T.O. Kolkata as because there is no Telegraph office nearest to the said addresses for that reason as per Circular/Order No. 33-2/T-1/10-co (Pt-1) dated 20.09.2011 of the concerned authority the said two Telegrams were sent through Post. Be it mentioned that as per aforesaid circular/order it is clear that the Telegrams for delivery beyond the delivery areas, i.e. 8 k.m. of the destination Telegraph office will be sent by ordinary Post only and for that BSNL will not be held responsible for any delay of non-delivery of such telegrams and in such cases no proof of delivery and no enquiries will be entertained.
Op further submitted that complainant booked the aforesaid 4 Nos of Telegrams on 14.07.2013 which was the last date of closure of Telegrams service system in India and the ops as per rules were sent the aforesaid 4 nos of Telegrams to the respective addresses in the manners as stated above and in fact after closure of the said service system and all the said set there is no such telegrams wings and staff also redeployed to the other units as per order of the concerned authority and after closure the Telgrams service system there is no such post or person as chief Superintendent of Central Telegraph office.
Fact remains that complainant even after aware of the above fact wrongly and motivatedly filed the malafied case against the ops which have no factual and legal basis at all. Moreover complainant entitled to get any cost or any other relief as wrongly sought for. Further it is submitted that as per printed instructions or rules as appears in the aforesaid booking forms telegrams for delivery beyond the delivery area i.e. 8 K.M. of the destination Telegraph office will be sent by ordinary post only and that BSNL will not be held. So, in the above circumstances, there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the op.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the complaint and written version and further hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, it is fact that complainant booked 4 nos of Telegrams on 14.07.2013 on the auspicious date of Historic Moment of withdrawal of Telegram Service System from Kolkata after 163 years.
Fact remains that complainant sent Telegrams to Prime Minister of India, Chief Minister of West Bengal, his mother Smt. Joytsna Sarkar and his sister Mrs. Nayana Guha Mazumder.
Fact remains that from 14.07.2013 the entire Telegram office and system is completely withdrawn and after 14.07.2013 there was no scope for sending any telegram and as because from 15.07.2013, there was no Telegram office or system. Invariably Telegram cannot be sent by telegraph message to the sendee on and from 15.07.2013.
Op has admitted that as because there was no existence of Telegram office or system from 15.07.2013, but the said Telegrams were sent to the respective persons by Post as per their guideline and that has been admitted by the op. But most interesting factor is that op has failed to prove that those Telegrams were delivered by the sendees. Though op has tried to show that there was no fault on their part and as per Circular/Order as mentioned dated 20.09.2011, they sent it by normal Post and in that case there was no proof of delivery and said documents are not available. So, they are not liable for that. So, op submits that there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op. But very simple question is that complainant sent the Telegrams on the auspicious day and on and from that day entire Telegram office or system is withdrawn from India and also Kolkata after lapse of 163 years. Then invariably there was some Historic Moment what the complainant tried to memories by sending Telegrams to Prime Minister of India, Chief Minister of West Bengal, his mother and his sister that has been admitted by the op.
So now it is op to prove that it was received by sendees. But anyhow op has failed to prove that same was received by the op and it was delivered. In such a situation it is proved that there was negligence and deficiency on the part of the Postal Authority when they received charges for Telegram, but it is admitted that it is sent by ordinary Post. Then it is the duty of the Postal Department to prove the delivery when same were received by the ops. But no such document is produced by the op that it was sent by Post when it was Telegram but not letter.
Considering all the above fact and also manner and nature of service as rendered by the op, we are convinced to hold that it is the fault on the part of the op and op shall have to satisfy that delivery of telegrams was made in respect of that Historic moment of the day. But op has failed to prove that. So, invariably negligence and deficiency on the part of the op is well proved. But op has tried to convince that they discharged their duties properly as per Circular/Order.
But peculiar factor is that about discharge of duties by the op regarding delivery of the said Telegrams to the sendee is not at all proved. So, the assertion of the op that they discharged their duties properly is completely baseless and without any foundation and negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op is well proved.
Ld. Lawyer for the op tried to convince that complainant has failed to prove the non-delivery of the Telegrams. But it shall be proved by the op and liability shall be discharged by the op, but op has not discharged their duty. So, negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op is well proved and fact remains that back behind the entire issue, there is Historic moment on 14.07.2013 that the entire Telegram system and office ended their service and it was closed and no doubt for that complainant has suffered mentally and subsequently he made several attempts by sending several letters for getting the result. But op was silent always. It indicates that op did not try to give redressal to the complainant.
In view of the above fact and circumstances and considering the entire materials we are convinced that as a consumer, the complainant is entitled to get some compensation and litigation cost for being harassed by the op and for not getting proper service from the ops.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 1,000/- against the ops.
Ops jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant for not rendering proper service and also for negligent and deficient manner of service and further for causing mental pain and agony and harassment to the complainant.
Ops jointly and severally are hereby directed to clear the entire decretal amount i.e. litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- as compensation i.e. total Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, punitive damages at the rate Rs. 100/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum and even if it is found that ops are not willing to comply this Forum’s order, in that case, penal proceeding u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against them.
