JUDGMENT 1. Respondent-complainant preferred a complaint before the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Protection Commission, Jammu. His case was that due to negligence of the employees of respondent No. 1 and 2, a telegram meant for him was not delivered to him in time. The telegram was received in the office of the respondent No. 2 on 16th Feb. 1998. This was wrongly sent to some other person on 17th Feb. 1998. It is on account of this factor, the respondent complainant was unable to get the job which he would have got had he appeared in the office from which the telegram was issued. It is stated that on account of the lapse of the respondents the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 15 lacs. The Commission has come to the conclusion that there was definite negligence on the part of the officers of respondents. One Mi. Jailakhani, an employee of the respondents was found to be guilty of this lapse. It was accordingly directed that respondent Chaman Lal be paid the compensation of Rs. 3000/-. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge. 2. The learned counsel for Union of India submits that on account of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act, there is an immunity to Union of India from being pursued in a Court of law. It is submitted that even if there is some remiss-ness on the part of officials of the department, even then on account of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Telegraph Act. So proceedings for damages can be initiated. For this, reliance is being placed on certain judgments. These have been given under Section 7 of the Post Office Act. It is submitted that these provisions are in para-materia and therefore, what has been said by various judicial authorities would apply to the facts of this case also. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported as The Presidency Post Master and anr. V. Dr. U. Shanker Rao II (1993) CPJ 141, Senior Post Master. G.P.O., Pune v. Akhil Bhatratiya Grahak Panchayat and anr. II (1995) CPJ 230 and The Post Master, Imphal and ors V. Jamini Devi Sagolband, I (2000) CPJ 28. 4. V. Dr. U. Shanker Rao II (1993) CPJ 141, Senior Post Master. G.P.O., Pune v. Akhil Bhatratiya Grahak Panchayat and anr. II (1995) CPJ 230 and The Post Master, Imphal and ors V. Jamini Devi Sagolband, I (2000) CPJ 28. 4. Before examining the matter further, it would be apt to notice section 9 of the Act referred to above. This reads as under: - "9". Government not responsible for loss or damage. The government shall not be responsible for any loss or damage which may occur in consequence of any telegraph officer failing in his duty with respect to the receipt, transmission of delivery of any message; and no such officer shall be responsible for any such loss or damage, unless he causes the same negligently, maliciously or fraudulently." 5. Provisions of Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act are in para-materia with Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act. 6. These provisions were interpreted by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in AIR 1988 Ker 218. What was observed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case is being reproduced below:- "...On the language of the Section, we are inclined to think that the immunity enuring to the Government is complete. A similar view was taken in Triefus and Co Ltd. v. Post Office, (1957) 2 ALL ER 387), referring to Section 13 of the Post Office Act, 1898. Order XXXIII Rule 5(d) requires rejection of an application where the allegations do not show a cause of action. When the section in clear terms confers an immunity on the Government against action for damages, it is a case where no cause of action is shown. We are expressing this view in the context of order XXXIII Rule 5." 7. The aforementioned decisions does support the contention put across by the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the above, it is held that in these matters because of immunity being there, a complaint before the Consumer Protection Commission shall not be maintainable, unless there is negligence and the act complained is malacious or fraudulent. This is not the case in this litigation. 8. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Consumer Protection Commission is set aside.