Delhi District Court
Rajiv Gauri vs Chief Post Master General on 14 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL BHATIA
DISTRICT JUDGE 01 - SOUTH EAST DISTRICT SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ 367-2019
SHRI RAJIV GAURI
Sole Proprietor
Indian Digital Systems
Regd. Officer at:-
48, LSC, DDA, Site 42 M.O.R. Land,
Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019 ......Plaintiff
Vs.
1. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL
Meghdoot Bhawan, Link Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. POST MASTER
Kalkaji Post Office,
New Delhi.
.....Defendants
Date of institution of case : 29.04.2019
Date of Reserving Judgment : 08.10.2024
Date of Judgment : 14.10.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,37,263/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 21% per annum.
CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 1 of 22 Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2024.10.16 16:32:36 +0530
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of Indian Digital Systems and is engaged in supply of network products, UPS and Global Positioning System (GPS). The plaintiff received an order from the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. for supply of 12 Units of GPS vide purchase order dated 21.05.2011 for an amount of Rs. 1,84,824/-.
3. Pursuant to the order, and to discharge his obligations, the plaintiff approached defendant no.2 on 11.06.2011 and booked consignment vide postal receipt bearing no. ED280599586IN dated 11.06.2011 for the delivery of above said products to the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, Bassi, Jaipur and sent a separate envelope by speed post containing original invoice/bill vide postal receipt bearing no. ED280599436IN dated 11.06.2011. After about 12 days of dispatch, the plaintiff was informed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd that they have not received the consignment.
4. On being intimated about the same, the plaintiff approached defendant no.2 and lodged a written complaint on 23.06.2011. Defendant no.2 replied vide letter dated 02.07.2011 stating that an inquiry was pending at the GPO, Jaipur. As there was no breakthrough in the inquiry, the plaintiff approached Deputy Manager, at GPO Jaipur, who informed him that the consignment is CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 2 of 22 untraceable/lost.
5. As there was no recourse left with the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed consumer complaint bearing no. 448/2011 before the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi, on 21.10.2011 for seeking recovery of Rs. 3,55,000/- against damages.
6. As the plaintiff did not fall within the definition of Consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the plaintiff withdrew the said complaint vide order dated 31.03.2017 and the period from 21.10.2011 to 31.03.2017 was exempted for the purpose of limitation and the plaintiff was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
7. That vide legal notice dated 25.12.2018, in compliance with Section 80 of the CPC, the plaintiff sought an amount of Rs. 6,27,557/- for the loss of goods of the plaintiff as well as for the loss of reputation and goodwill. The said letter was replied by the Superintendent of Post Offices, New Delhi, South Division and was intimated that the relevant records with respect to the subject speed post articles have been weeded out. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 1,85,447/- (being the amount of goods lost) along with interest @ 21% per annum, amounting to Rs. 3,01,815/-
CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 3 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:32:51 +0530 and Rs. 1,50,000/- as damages for the loss of his goodwill and reputation.
8. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants, who appeared and filed their written statement. As per the written statement, the defendants took the following preliminary objections:
(a). That the suit is barred by limitation;
(b). That the maximum compensation which can be paid for the loss of speed post articles is double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs. 1,000/-, whichever is less;
(c). That the defendants are only liable to pay for the loss of consignment if the same has been insured and not otherwise.
9. On the factual aspects of the case, the defendants have not denied the consignment being booked by the plaintiff but have stated that the relevant records have been weeded out as per the rules governing the defendants. It is further stated that the defendants have not caused any loss of reputation or goodwill of the plaintiff. It has been reiterated by the defendants that the defendants are not liable to compensate the plaintiff with the actual value of the articles lost until and unless the same have been insured. On these grounds, it is stated that the case of the plaintiff is completely baseless and is contrary to the various rules CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 4 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:33:03 +0530 framed by the Postal Department.
10.Plaintiff filed his replication denying the lack of liability of the defendants and has reiterated the factual position mentioned in the plaint. As far as limitation is concerned, it has been stated that the time which was consumed in the consumer complaint, has been exempted for the purposes of limitation by the Ld. District Forum and as such, the present suit has been filed within limitation.
11.Vide order dated 29.02.2020, the following issues were framed:-
(i). Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
(ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount as prayed for? OPP.
(iii). If the issue no.2 is proved in favour of plaintiff, whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the recovery amount? If yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
(iv).Relief.
12.Thereafter, the plaintiff examined himself and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Purchase order dated 21.05.2011 is marked as Mark A.
(ii) Original postal receipt No. ED 280599436IN is Ex PW1/2 and copy of postal receipt no. ED 280599586IN CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 5 of 22 Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2024.10.16 16:33:20 +0530 as Mark B.
(iii) Photocopy of written complaint dated 23.06.2011 to Manger, Post Office is Mark C.
(iv) Original letter dated 02.07.2011 sent by Post Office, Kalkaji is Ex PW1/4.
(v) Copy of consumer complaint bearing no. 448/11 is Mark D.
(vi) Certified copy or order dated 31.03.2017 is Ex PW1/6.
(vii) Copy of legal notice dated 26.12.2018 is Ex PW1/7.
(viii) Reply dated 05.02.2019 to legal notice is Ex PW1/8.
13.In his cross examination, the plaintiff has stated that at the time of booking of his speed post parcel, he was not asked to fill any form and he had taken the postal receipt issued by the Postal Department. He has admitted that he had not insured the consignment and denied any knowledge that the same needed to be insured. He had stated that he had earlier sent 5-6 consignments through the Postal Department but had never insured the same. He has denied going through the rules and regulations of the postal department.
14.Plaintiff also got examined the Assistant Section Officer from the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 6 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2024.10.16 16:33:35 +0530 Qutub Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi, who produced the original consumer complaint bearing no. 448/2011 and the same was Ex. PW2/1 (OSR) and postal receipt dated 11.06.2011 bearing no. ED280599586IN as Ex. PW2/2 (OSR).
15.Thereafter, the defendant examined Sh. Varun Mishra, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, South Division, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Copy of Gazetted of India notification dated 21.01.1999 is Ex DW1/A.
(ii) Copy of Gazetted of India notification dated 19.11.2013 is Ex DW1/B.
(iii) Office memorandum of Ministry of Communication and IT no. 1/2008-D dated 17.05.2012 as DW1/C.
(iv) Format of declaration of booking of electric articles as EX DW1/D.
16.In his cross examination, DW1 has stated that he had the knowledge of the facts of the case based upon records and did not have any personal knowledge of the same. He has denied the suggestion that in the reply to the consumer complaint, the defendants have admitted that the goods were misplaced by the SPC, Jaipur. He has further stated that the documents were weeded out as the documents pertaining to speed post are only kept for six months. He CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 7 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2024.10.16 16:33:48 +0530 denied any knowledge as to whether any investigation was conducted on behalf of the defendants in the present case.
17.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that he has proved the dispatch of the articles through speed post by way of Ex. PW2/2 (OSR). It is further stated that the defendants vide Ex. PW1/4 have admitted that certain inquiry was going on regarding the present case. Thus, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the factum of sending the consignment through speed post is proved by way of documents as well as admission of the defendants. Further, the non-delivery of the consignments and subsequent inquiry is also proved vide Ex. PW1/4. On legal aspect, he has submitted that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 only exempts the postal department from liability in case of loss, mis-delivery, delay or damages to the consignment. He has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in Hirenderanath Gohain vs. Union of India & Ors. (2010) Gauhati Law Reports 349 and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Union of India vs. Firm Ram Gopal Hukum Chand and Ors., AIR 1960 ALL 672.
18.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants has submitted that the defendants are covered by Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 from any liability in the present case. He has further submitted that as per Ex. DW1/A, CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 8 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:34:00 +0530 only double the amount of speed post charges or Rs. 1,000/- can be paid to the plaintiff in case of loss of consignments. He has further submitted that in terms of Ex. DW1/B, the goods sent through speed post need to be insured and compensation with respect to the value of goods can only be paid if the goods are insured. In view of the same, he has submitted that the case of the plaintiff is against the statute as well as the rules framed thereunder. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Postmaster vs. Rajesh Nag & Anr., WPC No. 312 of 2015 and judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Dharamveer Harijan, in Revision Petition No. 4567 of 2012.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:-
19.The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,37,263/- on account of the value of goods not delivered by the defendants to the consignee, interest on the above said amount @ 21 % per annum and for loss of goodwill and reputation.
20.It is an admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff booked the consignment consisting of 12 units of GPS systems vide postal receipt no. ED 280599586IN dated 11.06.2011 Ex PW2/2(OSR). It is further admitted case of the parties CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 9 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:34:14 +0530 that the goods were never received by the consignee. Plaintiff has also been able to prove letter dated 02.07.2011, Ex PW1/4 written by the postmaster, Kalkaji to the plaintiff regarding the inquiry at Jaipur regarding the speed post sent by the plaintiff.
21.The defendants have taken preliminary objection as to the delay in filing the present case stating that the present case was only filed in April, 2019 whereas the consignment was sent by the plaintiff on 11.06.2011 and has alleged that because of this fact there is delay in filing the present suit and the same is barred by limitation.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS:-
Issue no. 1 Whether the present suit is barred by limitation?
22.It is an admitted case of the parties that the consignment which is the subject matter of the present suit was booked by the plaintiff on 11.06.2011 vide Ex PW2/2(OSR). The plaintiff has submitted that after the dispute arose, the plaintiff filed a consumer complaint bearing no. 448/2011 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Qutub Enclave, Mehrauli and the same was disposed off vide order dated 31.03.2017, Ex PW1/6 with liberty to the plaintiff to approach the appropriate court. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff had been prosecuting another civil proceedings against the CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 10 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2024.10.16 16:34:26 +0530 defendant, however, the said proceedings were conducted before the Consumer Forum which did not have jurisdiction and as such the plaintiff is covered by Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore the present suit cannot be said to be time barred. It is further submitted that the Ld. the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Qutub Enclave, Mehrauli had given the liberty to file the present case and the period from 21.10.2011 till 31.03.2017 was exempted for the purpose of limitation.
23.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants has submitted that Section 14 only refers to a court where the previous proceedings were instituted and does not includes its ambit a tribunal including the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Qutub Enclave, Mehrauli.
24.As per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the period which has been spent in prosecuting the civil proceeding in a Court which for want of jurisdiction is unable to entertain the said suit needs to be excluded while computing the limitation of filing of a suit. Hon'ble Supreme court of India in MP Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 7 SCC 58 has held as follows:-
"34. It now remains to consider the decision of a two-Judge Bench in P. Sarathy y. SBr19. This judgment has held that an abortive proceeding before the appellate authority under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 11 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2024.10.16 16:34:40 +0530 1947 would attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act inasmuch as the appellant in this case had been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding before the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, which appeal was dismissed on the ground that the said Act was not applicable to the nationalised banks and that, therefore, such appeal would not be maintainable. This Court made a distinction between "civil court"
and "court" and expanded the scope of Section 14 stating that any authority or tribunal having the trappings of a court would be a "court" within the meaning of Section 14. It must be remembered that the word "court" refers only to a proceeding which proves to be abortive. In this context, for Section 14 to apply, two conditions have to be met. First, the primary proceeding must be a suit, appeal or application filed in a civil court.
Second, it is only when it comes to excluding time in an abortive proceeding that the word "court" has been expanded to include proceedings before tribunals,
35. This judgment is in line with a large number of authorities which have held that Section 14 should be liberally construed to advance the cause of justice--see Shakti Tubes Ltd. v. State of Bihar"o and the judgments cited therein. Obviously, the context of Section 14 would require that the term "court" be liberally construed to include within it quasi-judicial tribunals as well. This is for the very good reason that the principle of Section 14 is that whenever a person bona fide prosecutes with due diligence another proceeding which proves to be abortive because it is without jurisdiction, or otherwise no decision could be rendered on merits, the time taken in such proceeding ought to be excluded as otherwise the person who has approached the court in such proceeding would be CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 12 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2024.10.16 16:34:54 +0530 penalised for no fault of his own. This judgment does not further the case of Shri Viswanathan in any way. The question that has to be answered in this case is whether suits, appeals or applications referred to by the Limitation Act are to be filed in courts. This has nothing to do with civil proceedings" referred to in Section 14 which may be filed before other courts or authorities which ultimately do not answer the case before them on merits but throw the case out on some technical ground Obviously the word "court" in Section 14 takes its colour from the preceding words "civil proceedings". Civil proceedings are of many kinds and need not be confined to suits, appeals or applications which are made only in courts stricto sensu. This is made even more clear by the explicit language of Section 14 by which a civil proceeding can even be a revision which may be to a quasi-judicial tribunal under a particular statute."
25.A fair reading of the statute as well as the above mentioned judgment would reveal that the protection of Section 14 of Limitation Act is available to a plaintiff even if the previous case was filed before a tribunal. Thus, what has to be seen is whether the present case has been filed within the period of limitation after deducting the time spent before the Ld. Consumer Court.
26.The cause of action in the present case arose on 11.06.2011 and the consumer complaint was filed on 21.10.2011. The same got disposed on 31.03.2017 and the present suit was filed on 17.04.2019. the plaintiff had also sent legal notice under Section 80 CPC on 25.12.2018, Ex PW1/7 and the CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 13 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:35:09 +0530 same was replied vide reply dated 05.02.2019, Ex PW1/8. Thus, the time from 21.10.2011 to 31.03.2017 taken in conducting the previous litigation needs to be excluded while computing the time taken by the plaintiff to file the present case. Thus, for the purpose of limitation, following time line needs to be considered:-
S.No. Description Date Days from cause of action 1. Accrual of cause of 11.06.2011 0 action 2. Date of filing of 21.10.2011 131 consumer complaint
3. Date of disposal of 31.03.2017 1907 (Days to be consumer complaint excluded )
4. Date of filing of the 17.04.2019 2857 present suit 5. Time for the 950 purpose of limitation
27.Thus, the above calculation would reveal that the present suit was filed within 3 years from the accrual of the cause of action after deducting the time taken in pursuing alternatives civil litigation which needs to be excluded as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Thus, it is clear from the above discussion that the present suit has been filed within the period of limitation.
28.As such, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 14 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:35:27 +0530 ISSUE no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount as prayed for? OPP
29.The plaintiff has been able to prove the sending of the consignment vide Ex PW2/2 (OSR) and the same have also been admitted by the defendants. It is also an admitted case of the parties that the consignment did not reach the addressee and an inquiry was conducted by the officials of the defendants as evident from Ex PW1/4 i.e. letter dated 02.07.2011 sent by Post Office, Kalkaji. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff has been able to establish the sending of the consignment and its non-receipt by the addressee.
30.The defendant has submitted that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to any postal article beyond such liability as may be expressly taken by the Government. It is further submitted that vide gazette notification dated 19.11.2013, Ex DW1/B, the sender of a consignment had an option to insure the consignment and only in case of an ensured consignment, the post office would be liable for the amount which the consignment was ensured. It is further submitted that vide Ex DW1/A, in the event of loss of domestic speed post article compensation payable shall be the double of the composite speed post charges or Rs. 1000/- whichever is less. As such, the plaintiff can be paid a maximum amount of Rs. 1000/- or double the amount of speed post charges CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 15 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:35:42 +0530 and not the amount of loss as claimed by the plaintiff.
31.Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) High Court of Chhattisgarh in Postmaster vs. Rajesh Nag & Anr., WPC No. 312 of 2015
(ii) Judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Dharamveer Harijan, in Revision Petition No. 4567 of 2012.
32.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the defendants do not get any immunity under Section 6 of the Act as Section 6 of the Act only talks about loss of a postal article and the same needs to be proved by the defendant that the articles were lost and not misappropriated by the defendants or any of their officers. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Hirenderanath Gohain vs. Union of India & Ors. (2010) Gauhati Law Reports 349.
(ii)Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Union of India vs. Firm Ram Gopal Hukum Chand and Ors., AIR 1960 ALL 672.
33.A perusal of the two judgments filed by the defendants would show that both the judgments are in relation to delay of the articles sent by the parties therein. Delay is expressly CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 16 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:35:55 +0530 covered under Section 6 of the Act and the said judgments have interpreted Section 6 for delay in delivery of a consignment and have not gone into the other aspects covered by Section 6 of the Act.
34.In Union of India vs. Firm Ram Gopal Hukum Chand (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad was seized of the matter whereby the articles sent by post were not delivered to the addressee. Hon'ble High Court held as follows:-
"99. In my opinion the disappearance of a postal article raises no presumption that it has been "lost' within the meaning of Sec.
6. The Court shall not presume, in defiance of grim reality, that the conditions in the post office and the standard of integrity of its officials is os perfect, that the disappear of an article can only mean that it must have been lost by accident. In the absence of further evidence, the Court will hold that it is just as likely as not that the missing article has been misappropriated by some one within the department.
100. The plaintiff has proved in this case that he delivered the parcel to the post office and that it was transmitted by post. He has also proved that the parcel was never delivered. In fact, these allegations are admitted by the post office. Obviously, therefore, something has gone wrong and the Government department cannot claim, that it functioned in a normal manner- res ipsa loquitur, or to use its Sanskrit equivalent, pratyaksham kim pramanam. The failure to return the article to the sender speaks for itself and displaces the presumption that the post office functioned in a normal manner.
101. Moreover, a postal article is under the CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 17 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:36:07 +0530 control of the post office which has exclusive knowledge of what happened to it, and the onus is on it to disclose all the facts which entitle it to the protection of Sec. 6. The post office must give a detailed custody to the date when it claims to have lost possession of it. For example, if the post office alleges that the article was stolen from its custody, it must prove the theft and the loss of the article as a result of it."
35.Similarly, in Hirenderanath Gohain vs. Union of India, Hon'ble Guwahati High Court held as follows:-
"24.1. In view of the decisions in Nilabati Behera (supra) and N. Nagendra Rao (supra), when the negligence of the postal authorities appear to be the cause for loss of the petitioner's notes and manuscripts, which we have considered to, have resulted in deprivation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, direction for payment of compensation can definitely be ordered in favour of the petitioner. Although the petitioner claims that it is not possible to put a money value on the lost manuscripts and the notes, it is stated that if the worth of the manuscripts and the notes are to be considered in money terms, the same would be worth at least Rs. 10 lakh. The values of the lost books have been quantified at Rs.
60,000. If this be the worth of the contents of the lost parcel, the offer of Rs. 1,986 as compensation in our considered opinion is totally inadequate and unrealistic.
24.2. But determination of the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner on the basis of the above assessment and direct payment of the amounts noted above may not be justified in a writ proceeding.
Therefore, compensation can only be ordered in public law not for the actual loss, which may be determined through an appropriate proceeding for loss and CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 18 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:36:16 +0530 damage, but by way of token compensation. But this compensation cannot just be a symbolic amount, .
24.3. If we take note of all the attending circumstances, compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for loss of the manuscripts and notes may be in order. A further sum of Rs. 50,000 should also be payable for the loss of the books in the parcel. Accordingly, the State respondents are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.
1,50,000 (Rupees one lakh fifty thousands) only by way of compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner may receive this amount without prejudice to his rights to initiate appropriate proceeding to claim further damages. The respondent No.s 1 to 9 should make the aforesaid payment to the petitioner within 8 weeks from today."
36.A collective reading of these two judgments would reveal that in order to take the benefit of Section 6 of the Act, the defendants had to prove that the consignment was actually lost and not misappropriated or used by any of the officials of the defendants. The defendants have not taken any steps to show that the consignment was actually lost as it is their case that the documents with respect to the present transaction had been weeded out as the record pertaining to speed post had to be kept only for the period of 6 months. It is interesting to note that after booking of the speed post on 11.06.2011, the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the defendants on 23.06.2011 and filed the consumer complaint, Ex PW2/1(OSR) on 21.10.2011 both within six months of the date of the booking of the consignment. Even when the complaint was pending, the defendants CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 19 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:36:26 +0530 chose to weed out the record. Thus, it is clear that the defendants have no information as to what happened to the consignment booked by the plaintiff.
37.Section 6 of the Act is in the form an exception given to the Postal Department from liabilities arising out of loss/misdelivery or delay of any postal articles. To take the benefit of such an exception, the onus to prove the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act was upon the defendants. However, the defendants have no information about the same as they had conveniently weeded out the record within 6 months despite the consumer complaint pending at that stage. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad above, the onus was on the defendants to show that their case was covered by Section 6 of the Act. As mentioned herein above, the defendants could not establish that the article was lost within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act as the article was in control of post office, the defendants had exclusive knowledge of what happened to it and the onus to disclose all the facts entitling the defendants to the protection of section 6 of the Act was on the defendants which they have failed to dispense with.
38.Thus, what emerges from the above discussion is that the plaintiff booked the consignment with the defendants and the defendants failed to show that they are covered by the CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 20 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:36:36 +0530 exemption granted by Section 6 of the Act.
39.Thus, the plaintiff is found entitled to damages for the non-
delivery of articles sent by the defendants for an amount of Rs. 1,84,824/-. The plaintiff has also claimed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as damages for the loss of goodwill and reputation. However, no evidence as to the loss amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- has been placed on record by the plaintiff. However, as the plaintiff has been able to prove that the goods were not delivered to the addressee and the defendants have failed to show that they are covered y the exemption under Section 6 of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff for the loss of goodwill and reputation suffered by the plaintiff due to the negligence of the defendants.
ISSUE no. 3:- If the issue no 2 is proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the recovery amount? If yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
40.Plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum. However, there is no agreement between the parties as to the interest to be paid in case of default. However, the plaintiff has been engaged in litigation for the present dispute since 21.10.2011. As such, this Court is of the CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 21 of 22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2024.10.16 16:36:47 +0530 opinion that simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent on decreetal amount would be sufficient in the present case.
RELIEF:-
41.Based upon the above discussion, the plaintiff is found entitled for a decree of an amount of Rs. 2,35,447/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent from 21.10.2011 till the recovery of the said amount.
42. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
43.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
on 14.10.2024 RAHUL by RAHUL
BHATIA
BHATIA Date: 2024.10.16
16:37:02 +0530
(RAHUL BHATIA)
District Judge 01(SE),
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS DJ 367/2019 Rajiv Gauri Vs. Chief Post Master General pg. 22 of 22