F.A.No. 8 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.No.30 OF 2003
 DISTRICT FORUM KHAMMAM

Between:

1.    The Junior Telecom officer,
BSNL Customer Service Centre
Madhira, Khammam District

2.  The Branch Post Master,
     Wyra Post Office,
     Wyra, Khammam District

3.  The Superintendent of Post Offices,
     Head Post Office, Khammam                   Appellants/opposite parties

A N D

Sunarikani Peda Babu S/o Mallesu
Age 35 years, Occ: Nil, R/o C/o Sony Clinic
Santhi Nagar Colony, Wyra
Khammam District                                             Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the appellants                       Sri V.Vinod Kumar
Counsel for the respondent                     Sri G.Rajesham

QUORUM:      SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
                                                        &

                              SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

      TUESDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE

                                         TWO THOUSAND NINE

          Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)

***

          The opposite parties in C.D.No.30 of 2003 on the file of the District Forum, Khammam preferred the appeal against the order dated 24.11.2006.

          The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that the respondent, a Post Graduate in English secured 30,440 rank in Ed-cet.  He applied for admission in Fatima College of Education Warangal and St.Mary Centenary College of Education, Visakhapatnam.  On 18.1.2003 Fatima College, Warangal sent a telegram to him informing him that interview was scheduled to be held at 1 p.m. on 21.1.2003 and he was required to attend the interview along with original certificates.  The telegram was delivered to the respondent at 5 p.m. on 21.12.2003.  The respondent immediately contacted the college administration, on phone informing them about the delayed delivery of telegram and requested them to permit him to appear for the interview.  The college administration had not accepted the request.  The appellants again delivered a telegram at 5 p.m. on 31.1.2003 sent by St.Mary College, Visakhapatnam on 27.1.2003 whereby the respondent was required to attend the interview on 30.1.2003.  The appellant no.1 received the telegram on 20.1.2003 and it was delivered only on 31.1.2003 at 5 p.m. after the interview was completed.  The respondent’s grievance was that due to negligent act of the appellant,  he lost an opportunity of getting admission in B.Ed course in either St. Mary College, Visakhapatnam or Fatima College Warangal.

          The appellant no.1 had not chosen to contest the claim of the respondent.

          The appellants’ no.2 and 3 filed counter before the District Forum.  It was contended that they delivered the telegrams on the same day they received them.  They pleaded that there was no negligence on their part.  It was stated that the first telegram from Fatima College, Warangal was received on 21.1.2003 from Madira Telecom Centre by post.  The telegram was delivered to the respondent at 13.00 hours on 21.1.2003 before 5 p.m.  The second telegram, sent by St.Mary College Visakhapatnam was received by them on 31.1.2003 from the appellant no.1 and it was delivered at 5 p.m. on the same day and it was pleaded that u/s 6 of the India Post Offices Act 1898, the appellants no.2 and 3 are not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent. 

          The District Forum awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the respondent for the reason that the appellants no.2 and 3 failed to mention the time of receipt of telegrams and in the absence of mentioning of any such time they cannot take shelter u/s 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act.

          The point for consideration is whether there is any ground to interfere with the order passed b the District forum. 

          The parties are not at dispute in regard to the receipt of telegrams by the appellants no.2  and 3 sent by the Fatima College, Warangal and St. Mary College, Visakhapatnam.  It is also not in dispute that Fatima College, Warangal had sent telegram on 18.1.2003 and St. Mary College, Visakhapatnam had sent the telegram  on 27.1.2003.  The telegram sent by Fatima College Warangal was delivered to the respondent on 21.1.2003 whereas the telegram sent by St. Mary College was delivered to him on 31.1.2003.  The appellants no.2 and 3 disputed the time stating that before 5 p.m. on the relevant dates the telegrams were delivered.

          The question that surfaced the dispute is the time when the appellants received the telegrams and the time and date on which they had delivered the telegrams to the respondent.

          Though there is no dispute about receipt of telegrams by the appellants no.2 and 3 on 21.1.2003 and 31.1.2003, the appellants had not filed any document in support of their contention and moreover  the appellants no.2 and 3 failed to mention the time on 21.1.2003 and 31.1.2003 that they received the telegrams.  The address of the respondent has been categorically mentioned in both the telegrams and the two telegrams were sent by Fatima College, Warangal and St. Mary College, Visakhapatnam respectively were well in advance to the date of interview and any defence that there was no delay on both occasions not even on a single occasion would show the magnitude  of negligence on the part of the appellants.  Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act can be invoked only when there was no negligence exhibited by the employees of the postal or telecom departments and in the circumstances we find the appellants not entitled to get protection under the umbrella of Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act.

          The District Forum awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the respondent.  It is true that the respondent had lost opportunity of attending the interview in both the colleges.  However, it should be borne in mind that attending the interview itself does not guarantee an applicant the seat or the post whatsoever it may be.  When the applicant had not claimed that he would certainly get admission  on the strength of marks secured in Ed-Cet, an amount of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the District forum towards compensation to the respondent cannot be held justified and we quantify the amount at Rs.25,000/- which was already received by the respondent during the pendency of the appeal.  Therefore, the appellants need not pay any further amount to the respondent.

          In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the District forum in C.D.No.30 of 2003 by restricting the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded as compensation to Rs.25,000/- which had already been received by the respondent.  Hence, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.  No costs.

                                                                             PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                                      MEMBER
                                                                                   Dt.23.06.2009