State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Superintendent Of Post Offices, Head ... vs Rakesh Kumar on 27 November, 2008
1 JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI First Appeal no.159 of 2008 Against order dated 20.3.2008, passed by Palamu District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj, in Consumer Complaint no.47 of 2007. Superintendent of Post Offices, Head Post Office, Daltonganj - Appellant Vrs Rakesh Kumar - Respondent For Appellant : Mr.C.K.Jha, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Before: - Justice Gurusharan Sharma, President Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy, Member And Mr. Satyendra Kumar Gupta, Member. J U D G M E N T
S.K.Gupta: This appeal is directed against order dated 20.3.2008 passed by Palamu District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj, in Consumer Complaint no.47 of 2007, whereby for deficiency in service, opposite party-appellant was directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. The appellant was further directed to pay the said amount within 60 days from the date of order, failing which interest @ 6% was payable from the date of order till the date of payment.
2. The appeal has been filed on 02.5.2008 whereas limitation period expired on 19.4.2008. A petition for condonation of delay under Rule 8(4) of the State Rules has been filed wherein it is stated that free copy of the impugned order was received by the advocate of the appellant on 10.4.2008 and thereafter completing necessary official formalities including obtaining sanction to file appeal, it could be filed on 02.5.2008. It is further stated that delay caused in filing appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. These facts remain uncontroverted. Obviously, appeal has been filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the free copy of the impugned order. An endorsement regarding receipt of the free copy of the impugned order appears to have been made by the concerned advocate in the corner of the 1st page of the impugned order, which is dated 10.4.2008. In the circumstances, 13 days delay caused in filing appeal from the date of impugned order, is condoned.
3. Complainant-respondent had filed complaint against the opposite party-appellant before the Palamu District Consumer Forum at Daltonganj claiming Rs.9,000/- as compensation. His case was that he sent a letter containing a draft for Rs.3,000/- and other articles by speed post from Kutchery Post Office Daltonganj to Anil Kumar Gupta on his address at Panipat, Haryana, on 14.5.2007. But the said letter did not reach the addressee till filing of the complaint. On complaint made by the respondent to the Sub Post Office, Daltonganj, he was informed that the letter in question was delivered to Anil Kumar Gupta on 18.6.2007. Thereafter, the respondent contacted Anil Kumar Gupta, but he informed that the said speed post letter was not received by him. Then the respondent filed the complaint.
4 On notice, the opposite party-appellant appeared before the District Consumer Forum, filed written statement and contested the complaint. It was admitted that the respondent had posted a letter addressed to Anil Kumar Gupta by speed post on 14.05.2007. It was further stated that the said letter was delivered on the address written on the letter on 18.5.2007 and that by mistake the respondent was informed by the appellant that the letter was delivered on 18.6.2007 on the address. It was further case of the appellant that the Postal Department could not be held liable for loss or delayed delivery of any letter or article as provided under Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act. The Department was liable to pay only double of the price of stamps adhered on the letter. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to get Rs.50/- only as the letter was posted to be sent by speed post on postal stamps of Rs.25/-.
5 Inspite of issuance of notice, the respondent did not appear. Hence only appellant was heard and it was fixed for judgment on the basis of the materials on record.
6. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act gives complete immunity to the Government from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage caused to any postal article and that there was no allegation that any particular officer of the Post Office was guilty of fraud, wilful act or default which led to delayed delivery of the Postal article.
7 According to Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms by Central Government as hereinafter provided and no officer of Post Office shall incur any liability by reasons of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he had caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
8. It is the case of the appellant that the letter posted on 14.5.2007 was delivered on 18.5.2007 to the addressee. Photostat copy of the Delivery slip dated 18.5.2005 of the concerned Post Office has been filed which shows that the letter was received by one Anisha and not by Anil Kumar Gupta, the addressee. It has not been clarified as to why the letter was delivered to Anisha instead of the addressee himself.
9. From the impugned order it is clear that an affidavit sworn in by one Naveen Kumar Sinha, on behalf of the Postal Department appellant was filed in which it was stated that the Speed Post letter in question was delivered to one Anisha on 18.5.2007 by Ajay Singh, Postman no.20 at Panipath. Admittedly, the addressee of the letter was Anil Kumar Gupta. Therefore, undoubtedly it is a case of misdelivery committed willfully by the said Postman. As stated above there is no explanation as to why the letter was delivered to Anisha instead of Anil Kumar Gupta. And, Anil Kumar Gupta, the addressee denied to have received the letter.
10. In such circumstance, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act cannot save the appellant from the liability as the misdelivery, obviously, was caused by the willful act of Ajay Singh, the Postman, an individual employee. We therefore, are of the opinion that the appellant was deficient in service as the Speed Post letter was not delivered to the addressee by the Postal Department and the complainant is entitled to receive compensation for mental agony suffered by him.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgement. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed but without cost.
Ranchi, the 27th November, 2008.
Member Member President