Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President;
Mr. Pothuri Venkateswara Rao & Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi, Members
POST MASTER, STATION KACHIGUDA & ORS.—Appellants/O.P.
versus
G. HANUMANTHA REDDY, I.A.S. Retd.—Respondent/Complainant
C.D. Appeal No. 410 of 1992, Cross Appeal No. 69 of 1993—Decided on 15.3.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. H. Prahalad Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent: In person.
The compensation awarded by the District Forum for unexplained and unusual delay in delivering a Speed Post letter was reasonable and equitable.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - DELAY IN DELIVERY OF SPEED POST - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - REASONABLE AND EQUITABLE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY DISTRICT FORUM UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant sent a Speed Post cover containing his article and photo to be published in Times of India, New Delhi. The cover was delivered late due to unexplained and unusual delay by the postal authorities, resulting in the complainant missing the opportunity to have his photo published along with the article.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was unexplained and unusual delay in delivering the Speed Post letter to the addressee. The court also found that the compensation and costs awarded by the District Forum were reasonable and equitable having regard to the circumstances of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether there was unexplained and unusual delay in delivering the Speed Post letter to the addressee? 2. Whether the compensation and costs awarded by the District Forum were reasonable and equitable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was unexplained and unusual delay in delivering the Speed Post letter to the addressee based on the following factors: a. The article was booked at Kachiguda Head Post Office at 10.02 hrs. but was not dispatched to the airport until 15.40 hrs. b. The article reached Delhi Airport at 9.50 hrs. on the next day but was not delivered to the Transmit Mail Office until 11.25 hrs. c. The article reached the Speed Post Concentration Center only in the evening of the next day. d. The article was lying in the Speed Post Concentration Center from the evening of the next day till it reached the Indraprastha Post Office between 14 and 15 hours on the following day. 2. The court held that the compensation and costs awarded by the District Forum were reasonable and equitable based on the following factors: a. The complainant fought with successive governments for about 45 years to vindicate his rights. b. The complainant made a research on Bala Saheb Patloji Thorat’s case to prove that it is not the longest litigation and that his own litigation is the longest. c. The complainant got his case proved, after considerable fights the longest litigation case and got it entered in the Guinness Book of World Records. d. The complainant missed the very rare opportunity of his photo being published, as being a person who fought the longest litigation, in the Times of India.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed without costs.
Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—CD. Appeal No. 69 of 1993 :
(Crosss Appeal under the Consumers Protection
Act, 1986 against the praying to award a compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the Cross Appellant herein and a against the appeal filed by the respondents herein).
2. These appeal coming on for hearing, upon parusing the appeal and the order of District Forum and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. H. Prahalad Reddy, Advocate for the appellants in C.D.A. 410/92 and respondents in Cross Appeal No. 69/93 and of Mr. G. Hanumantha Reddy, Party-in-person for respondent in CDA No. 410/92 and appellant in Cross Appeal 69/93 the Court delivered the following Judgment :
3. These two C.D.As. arise out of an order passed in C.D.No. 405/92 in the District Forum, Hyderabad. The C.D.A. No. 410/92 is filed by the opposite party questioning the awarding of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of order and costs of Rs. 1,000/- within two months from the date of this order. On the other hand, the Cross Appeal 69 of 1993 was filed by the complainant claiming that he should have been awarded damages of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/-.
4. Since common questions arise for consideration in both the matters, they are disposed of by a common order.
5. The complainant brought litigation against the four successive governments namely 1. The Nizam’s Government, 2. the Hyderabad Government, 3. Andhra Pradesh Government; and 4. Indian Government which commended from 12.4.1945 to 20.1.1990 i.e. for a period of 44 years nine months and 8 days. The complainant brought the same to the notice of the authorities of the Guinness Book of World Records for being recorded as the longest litigation. On being informed by the Guinness Book of World Records he approached the Limca Book of Records and in the said records his case was included as the longest litigation. Basing on the same, complainant approached the Guinness Book of World Records for his case being included, as the. litigation that took longest period. But he was informed that there was already Bala Saheb Patloji Thorat’s case in the records as the longest litigation which ran for a period of 760 years. The Complainant doubted the same and requested the Guinness Book of Records to furnish judgment in Thorat’s case. For this, the Guinness Book of Records informed that they do not have a copy of the judgment and furnished press cutting of Times of India published on 29.4.1966 and advises the complainant to do research in the matter. Accepting the challenge the complainant conducted research and presented irrefutable evidence and disproved that any case was filed in 1205 A.D. and which ran for 760 years. Thereupon the Guinness Book of World Records agreed to include the case of the complainant in place of Bala Sahib Patloji Thorat’s Case as the longest case in the Guinness Book of World Records. Thereafter, the complainant sent his finding dated 15.3.1991 to the Editor, Times of India, Bombay to disprove their publication made on 2.9.66 that Bala Sahib Patloji Thorat fought litigation for 760 years. As there was no response, the complainant wrote a D.O. letter on 31.1.1992 to the Editor, Shri Dili Pedgoankar, Times of India stating that he did not even express regret for publishing incorrect information about Bala Sahib Patloji Thorat’s case.
6. In response to the said letter, Smt. Sabina Sehgal, Senior Correspondent, Times of India, wrote a letter dated 10.2.1992 to the complainant informing him that she was very keen to work on an article throwing light on both Bala Sahib Patloji Thorat’s case and the complainant’s own case and if possible she would like to publish the same the next Sunday, on 16.2.92 on 13.2.1992, at about 8.00 a.m. she got in touch with the complainant on phone and asked him to send recent photograph by Speed Post to be published alongwith the article on 16.2.1992. According to the complainant, on 13.2.1992 at abo
