State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chief Postmaster General Kerala Circle vs Rekha Sathyan, on 29 November, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. A/10/26 (Arisen out of Order Dated 19/11/2009 in Case No. CC 155/06 of District Kannur) Chief Postmaster General Supt. of Post Offices Post master M.P.Hareendran Vs. Rekha Sathyan BEFORE: Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 29 Nov 2010 ORDER Disposed as Allowed in Part
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 26/2010
JUDGMENT DATED: 29..11..2010
PRESENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
1. Chief Postmaster General Kerala Circle, :APPELLANTS
Thiruvananthapuram 695033.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thalassery Division,
Thalassery-670102.
3. Postmaster,
Ummencheria Postoffice,
Ummencheria.
4. MP.Hareendran, Postman,
Ummencheria.
(By R.P.Sandeep, Authorise representative)
Vs.
Rekha Sathyan, : RESPONDENT
W/o Sathyan,
Reshmi Nivas, P.O.Kadirur,
Thalassry, Kannur.
(By Adv.R.S.Sarat)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.155/06 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4 in their failure to deliver the registered postal article to the addressee and the resultant financial loss to the complainant. Thus, the complainant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the alleged deficiency of service.
2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They claimed immunity under section 6 of the Indian Postoffice Act.
3. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and DWs 1 to 4 were examined on the side of opposite parties. Ext.A1 and A2 documents and Exts. B1 to B7 documents on the side of the parties to the complaint in CC.155/06 were also marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.1000/-. It is against the said order the present appeal is filed.
4. We heard both sides on 10.11.10 and the appeal was adjourned to this day (29.11.2010) for further hearing and clarifications. But on this day, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We further heard the submissions made by the learned authorised representative for the appellants/opposite parties.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant issued a registered letter to the addressee, A.Latheef. The acceptance of the registered article by the postal authorities is admitted. It is also admitted by the appellants/opposite parties that the said registered postal article was not delivered to the addressee, A Latheef. It is the definite case of the opposite parties that the registered postal article was served on the addressee's father. It is to be noted that the definite case of the respondent/complainant is that the aforesaid registered letter was issued to the addressee Latheef intimating the dishonour of the cheque. It is also the case of the complainant that she preferred a complaint N.I.Act before the concerned Magistrate court claiming the cheque amount and compensation on the ground of dishonouring of the said cheque and that the addressee Latheef took the contention that he was not served with the statutory notices informing dishonouring of the said cheque. Thus, the respondent/complainant failed in her attempt to realise the cheque amount and compensation from the drawer of the cheque A.Latheef. Thus, the respondent/complainant succeeded in establishing her inconvenience and financial loss on account of the lapse, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not delivering the registered letter to the addressee, A Latheef.
6. The appellants/opposite parties claimed immunity under Section 6 of the Indian Postoffice Act. It is to be noted that the respondent/ complainant issued the registered letter to the addressee A Latheef. The 4th opposite party/Postman and the other opposite parties were fully aware of the fact that the registered letter was sent by the complainant to the addressee Latheef. But the 4th opposite party postman negligently delivered the registered postal article to the father of the addressee Latheef. The aforesaid negligence can be considered as a willful act of omission or negligence on the part of the 4th opposite party/postman. He was legally bound to deliver the registered postal article only to the addressee or to the authorized person. There is no case for the appellants/opposite parties that father of the addressee was authorized to receive or accept registered article on behalf of the addressee, Latheef. So, entrusting or delivering the registered postal article without authority would amount to wilful negligence. The aforesaid negligence or wilful act or omission can be treated as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is to be noted that the opposite parties 1 to 3, the higher officials of the 4th opposite party/postman had not taken any necessary steps to redress the grievance of the complainant who sent the registered letter to the addressee Latheef. Thus, the Forum below can be justified in disallowing the claim for immunity under Section 6 of the Indian Postoffice Act.
7. The authorised representative for the appellants relied on the decision rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in Superintendent of Post Offices, Paurl Garhwal, Uttaranchal Vs. Atma Ram reported in 2007 NCJ 54 (NC). The facts and circumstances of the aforesaid reported case are entirely different from the present case. In the present case on hand, the complainant who sent the registered letter to the addressee suffered mental agony, inconveniences and financial loss on account of the negligence on the part of the 4th opposite party/postman. But, in the reported case there was nothing on record to show that the misdelivery of the postal article resulted in dismissal of the complaint filed under section 138 of N.I.Act. It is to be noted that in the reported case the addressee therein had given standing instruction to deliver the postal articles in his absence to his room partner. But in the present case the addressee Latheef had not given any such standing instruction authorizing his father. A reading of section 6 of the post office Act would make it clear that there cannot be any immunity for the fraudulent act or willful act or willful default of an officer of the post office. There can be no doubt that delivering a registered postal article to an unauthorized person is nothing but a willful default. Thus the claim for immunity u/s 6 of Indian Post office Act is not available to the appellants. If the said unauthorised practice adopted by the opposite parties is allowed to continue, it will end in irreparable loss and damages to the senders of registered postal articles. If the so called immunity is allowed in favour of the postal authorities as in the present case, it is very easy and convenient for the postal authorities to say that they are entitled to immunity under section 6 of the Post office Act. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid negligence of the 4th opposite party/postman resulted in irreparable loss and injury to the respondent/complainant. By knowingly doing an unauthorized act can be treated as willful negligence and default. The materials on record would show that the 4th opposite party/postman was wilfully negligent and only because of his wilful negligence the respondent/ complainant suffered inconveniences and financial loss. The available circumstances would also show that the postal authorities treated the registered postal articles like an ordinary postal article. The postman was expected to deliver the registered postal article to the addressee or the authorized person. He was legally bound to deliver the registered postal article to the addressee. It can very safely be concluded the 4th opposite party postman committed willful default. Hence we hold that the appellants/opposite parties are not entitled to the protection/immunity u/s 6 of the Indian Post office Act.
8. The complainant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The Forum below awarded Rs.60,000/- as compensation. The complainant has not adduced any acceptable evidence to substantiate her claim for Rs.1,00,000/- or for the awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/-. It is true that the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque was Rs.1,00,000/-. The mere fact that the complainant failed to proceed against the drawer of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can not be taken as a ground to hold that the complainant was not provided with any other course or option for recovery of the cheque amount. It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant can very well proceed against the drawer of the cheque A.Latheef for recovery of the amount due to her. Considering these aspects, it can be held that the compensation of Rs.60000/- awarded by the Forum below is on the higher side. It may be correct to say that the procedure adopted by the complainant to realise the cheque amount under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act might be an easy way for recovery of the cheque amount. But that does not mean that the complainant is left with no other mode or method for recovery of the cheque amount. Considering all these aspects of the case, we are pleased to reduce the compensation of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.25000/-. The cost of Rs.1000/- ordered by the Forum below can be treated as reasonable. Hence the same is confirmed.
In the result the appeal is allowed partly. Thereby the impugned order dated 19.11.09 passed by the CDRF, Kannur is modified. The compensation of Rs.60,000/- ordered by the Forum below is reduced to Rs.25000/- with cost of Rs.1000/-. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
ps
[ Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN] PRESIDING MEMBER