National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Indian Postal Department, Head Post ... vs Amitabh Srivastava on 3 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 535 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 05/09/2014 in Appeal No. 591/2013 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT, HEAD POST OFFICE HEAD POST OFFICE KORBA CHHATTISGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. AMITABH SRIVASTAVA SON OF SHRI R.K. SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF M.I.G. 419, SADA COLONY, POST JAMINIPALI, TEHSIL KATGHORA, KORBA CHHATTISGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO
Dated : 03 Jun 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. Counsel for petitioner present. None for the respondent, despite service. The respondent/complainant is proceeded against ex-parte. Arguments heard. There is a delay of 81 days in filing this revision petition. The delay is hereby condononed for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.
2. The present case swirls around the question regarding the bar created by section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The said section runs as under:
"6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no, officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default."
3. Both the Fora below came to the conclusion that the bar of section 6 is not applicable to the present case. In the present case, Mr. Amitabh Srivastava, who is an advocate, sent a letter through registered post on 04.07.2012 through the post office for sending registered notice to the Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune, Maharashtra. That letter could not be received. The Fora below awarded Rs. 5000/- in favour of the complainant and Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation.
4. I am of the considered view that the view taken by the Fora below does not stand the scrutiny of law. This view is supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an authority reported in the case of "Union of India versus Mohd. Nazim", AIR 1980 Supreme Court 431, was pleased to hold:-
"These are only some of the provisions of the Act which seem to indicate that the post office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of the sender of the postal article for reaching it to the addressee. It is really a branch of the public service, providing postal services subject to the provisions of the India Post Office Act and the rules made thereunder. The law relating to the post office in England is not very much different from that in this country. In Triafus and Co. Ltd. v. Post Office (1957) 2 QB 352, the court of appeal held that the post office is a branch of revenue and the Post Master General does not enter into any contract with a person who entrusts to the post office a postal packet for transmission overseas. This decision approves the observations of Lord Mansfield in Whitfield v. Le Despencer (1778) 2 Cowp. 754. In the course of his judgment, Lord Mansfield said, "The Post Master has no hire, enters into no contract, carries on no merchandize or commerce. But the post office is a branch of revenue, and a branch of police, created by Act of Parliament. As a branch of revenue, there are great receipts; but there is likewise a great surplus of benefit and advantage to the public, arising from the fund. As a branch of police it puts the whole correspondence of the kingdom (for the exceptions are very trifling) under government, and entrusts the management and direction of it to the crown, and officers appointed by the crown. There is no analogy therefore between the case of the Post Master and a common carrier."
5. This view was also followed by this Bench in case of "Union of India Vs. Piyush Manocha" in R.P. No. 1388 of 2012, decided on 20.05.2013. This commission in its 4 Bench members in the case of The Presidency Post Master and another versus Dr. U. Shanker Rao, (N.C.), Revision Petition Nos. 175 and 247 of 1992, Decided on 15.4.1993, was pleased to hold that "services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. Establishing the Post Offices and running the postal service the Central Government performs a governmental function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for the article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges posed by the State for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier."
6. Same view was taken in another judgment of this Commission reported in the Post Master, Imphal and others versus Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, 2000(1) CLT 577.
7. The same view was also taken in case titled as "Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices. Udupi Division, Udupi Vs. Mahipal University and Others" by three Members' Bench in RP No. 4967 of 2008, decided 10.04.2015.
8. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the Fora below.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER