State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India Through Senior ... vs Harminder Singh S/O S. Surjit Singh on 31 May, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 499 of 2007
Date of institution : 5.4.2007
Date of Decision : 31.5.2012
Union of India through Senior Superintendent of Posts, G.P.O., Amritsar.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Harminder Singh s/o S. Surjit Singh R/o H. No. 1234, Street No. 2, Mohini
Park, P.O. Khalsa College, Amritsar.
2. Rajbir Singh s/o Harminder Singh R/o H. No. 1234, Street No. 2, Mohini
Park, P.O. Khalsa College, Amritsar also at c/o Jang Bahadur Singh R/o
H. No. 1762/2, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 6.3.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate for
Sh. Namit Kumar, Advocate
For the respondents : None.
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party-Union of India (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 6.3.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondents/complainants (hereinafter called 'the respondents') was accepted by the District Forum.
2. The complaint was filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 alleging that respondent No.1 had booked a consignment through speed post from General Post Office, Amritsar vide receipt No. SPEE7706918371N on 19.4.2006 at 9.53 a.m. and paid Rs. 30/- as charges of speed post for the First Appeal No. 499 of 2007 2 delivery of the consignment to respondent No.2 at his address of Chandigarh. The consignment was consisted of admission notice as well as appointment letter and consent letter from OHIO State University Columbus, United State of America. As per the letters, respondent No. 2 was admitted in the course of Doctor of Philosophy, Degree Program in Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering for Autumn Quarter-2006 on Columbus Campus at Ohio State University. Respondent No. 2 was asked to enter as Graduate Teaching Associate for which he was to teach as Assistant for 20 hours in a week @ 1220 dollars per month as his Assistanceship remuneration and his Engineering Computer Fee and a portion of his health benefits was also covered. It is also alleged by respondent No. 2 that there was a condition in the Graduate Associate Appointment Form that signed copy of this document must reach till May 10th, 2006, if failed to return a signed copy by this date then the appointment will be considered as rejected. The appellant failed to deliver the consignment to respondent No. 2 at his Chandigarh address which resulted in the rejection of appointment of respondent No. 2 as he had failed to send the required documents after accepting the offer of the OHIO University and duly signed such documents to the OHIO State University, Columbus, United States of America due to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Due to non-delivery of the consignment within time as prescribed for the delivery of speed post consignments, the career of respondent No. 2 was spoiled and he suffered irreparable loss of his future career. The complaint was filed by the respondents with the prayer that an amount of Rs. 5 lacs may be awarded against the appellant for its negligence and deficiency in service and the same be paid to respondent No. 2.
First Appeal No. 499 of 2007 3
3. Upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed reply of the complaint taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable in the present form, the complaint was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties as Sr. Superintendent Post Office was working under the Chief Postmaster General, Chandigarh and Director General of Post Office, New Delhi under the Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India, New Delhi but the respondent had not impleaded the necessary parties in the complaint, as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed on this score only, the complaint was filed without any cause of action and the appellant was not liable as per Section 6 of the Post Office Act. On merits, it was admitted that the consignment was booked on 19.4.2006 which was to be delivered to Sh. Rajbir Singh c/o Jang Bahadur Singh at Sector 36, Chandigarh and not at Amritsar address as noted against respondent No. 2. Para No. 2 of the complaint was denied for want of knowledge as the consignment was not opened by the officials of the appellant. It is alleged by the appellant that the liability of the Postal Department in case of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to its contents is limited to double the speed post charges or Rs. 1000/- whichever is less as per notification dated 21.1.1999 of the Government of India, as such, the respondents were entitled only for Rs. 60/- i.e. double of the charges which were paid by respondent No. 1 to the appellant at the time of booking of the consignment. It is alleged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as the speed post articles was despatched by the Speed Post Centre, Amritsar on the same date i.e. 19.4.2006 to Speed Post Centre, Chandigarh which was duly entered in the Speed Post manifest at Sr. No. 36/81. It was further alleged that the consignment was further dispatched alongwith 80 other articles to D-2-IN-Sec dated 19.4.06 through Mail Agent/3 Amritsar RMS First Appeal No. 499 of 2007 4 dated 19.4.2006. The respondents never approached the department regarding the non-delivery of the consignment. The Manager, Speed Post Centre, Amritsar issued a search bill No. SPC/ASR/SB/81/06 dated 2.5.2006 in an other case, the consignment was also booked on 19.4.2006. The Sub Record Officer, RMS, LD Division, Chandigarh vide letter No. SBIII/59/SRO/Chandigarh dated 17.5.06, three speed post bags closed by Speed Post Centre, Amritsar alongwith particular bag containing 81 speed post Article were despatched to Speed Post Centre, Chandigarh on 20.4.2006. But the Speed Post Manager, Chandigarh vide his letter No. NSPC/INW_CHD/694-701/06-07 dated 16.6.2006 confirmed that the particular speed post bag containing 81 speed post article including the article No. EE770691837IN was treated as lost in transit before reaching Speed Post Centre, Chandigarh. The respondents did not level allegation against any of the official of the appellant, who fraudulently or by willful act or default lost the consignment of the respondents, as such, the liability of the appellant was only Rs. 60/-, which was sanctioned by the Department vide order dated 20.6.2006 for the payment of the same to the respondents. The dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondents within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
6. Hence, the appeal.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.
First Appeal No. 499 of 2007 5
8. The present appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the order of the District Forum is against Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and the order of the District Forum is against the well settled position of law, as such, the same is liable to be set-aside.
9. It is admitted case of the appellant that respondent No. 1 had booked a consignment on 19.4.2006 at 9.53 a.m. through speed post at General Post Office, Amritsar and paid Rs. 30/- as the requisite fee/charges.
10. It is also admitted case of the appellant that the consignment was not delivered to the consignee i.e. respondent No. 2 as the same was lost in transit.
11. The version of the respondents is that respondent No. 1 had sent documents Exs. C-5 to C-9 which were received from the Ohio State University, USA regarding the admission and appointment of respondent No. 2 in the above University and due to non-delivery of the same within the prescribed time as per the Speed Post, he could not send the consent of acceptance to the University, as such, his admission and appointment was rejected by the University.
12. We have perused letter Ex. C-6 dated 29.3.2006 from the Department of Food, Agriculture and Biological Engineering of Ohio State University, U.S.A.. The relevant para is reproduced:-
"Dear Rajbir Singh This letter is to let you know in September 2006 you will be a graduate teaching Assocaiate (GTA) in the Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering. The responsibilities/duties of that position are described further in this document. This assistanceship will begin Autumn Quarter-2006 for one year @ 1220 dollars ($1220 per month) ($14640 annually). Your Engineering Computer Fee and your portion of health benefits will also be covered."
13. We have also perused Graduate Associate Appointment Form Ex. C-7. The relevant para of the same is reproduced:- First Appeal No. 499 of 2007 6
"Date by which a signed copy of this document must be returned : May 10, 2006. Retain one signed copy for your records. Return the other copy to the appointing unit at the address listed on the first page of this form. Note : Failure to return a signed copy by this date will be considered a rejection of the appointment. The position may then be offered to another graduate student."
14. So from the above documents, it is proved that an offer of appointment in the Food, Agriculture and Biological Engineering of Ohio State University, U.S.A. was offered by the University with the pay $1220 per month to respondent No. 2 and his Engineering Computer Fee and Health Benefits were also available to respondent No. 2 from the University in addition. But due to non delivery of the consignment he could not return the forms by giving acceptance to the University resultantly, his admission and appointment was rejected by the University due to the negligence on the part of the appellant for non-delivery of the consignment which was sent by respondent No. 1 to his son respondent No. 2. The appellant has not denied that these documents were not sent by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2.
15. So it is proved that due to negligence of the appellant, the future of respondent No. 2 was ruined and his admission as well as appointment was rejected by Ohio State University, U.S.A., which was a golden chance to an Indian Student.
16. The version of the appellant is that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, there is exemption to the Postal Authorities in case of loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage and as per Rule 66-B of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, the maximum liability is double of the amount of composite speed post charges or Rs. 1000/- whichever is less. The appellant cited the authorities of the Hon'ble National Commission passed in Revision Petition No. 15 of 1997 "Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana and others versus Vijay Rattan First Appeal No. 499 of 2007 7 Aggarwal", "The Post Master, Imphal and others versus Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband", 2000 (1) CLT 577 and Revision Petition No. 314 of 2003 (Union of India and others versus R.C. Puri" as well as the judgment of our own Commission passed in First Appeal No. 1003 of 2007 titled as "Post Master/Senior Post Master, Main Post Office, Muktsar versus Debashish Chakarbarty" but these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case as these judgments do not relate to the Speed Post Services.
17. It is admitted case of the appellants that the consignment was booked at Amritsar by respondent No. 1 in the name of respondent No. 2. It is also admitted case of the appellant that the consignment was not delivered to the addressee. The version of the appellant is that the consignment with other three Speed Post bags containing 81 Speed Post Articles were despatched to Speed Post Centre, Chandigarh on 20.4.2006 but the Manager, Speed Post Centre, Chandigarh vide his letter No. NSPC/INW_CHD/694-701/06-07 dated 16.6.2006 had confirmed that the particular speed post bag containing 81 speed post articles including the article No. EE770691837IN is treated as 'lost' in transit before reaching Speed Post Centre, Chandigarh. There is nothing on record to show who was responsible for the lost of the speed post bags and what action had been taken by the appellant against the official of the department, who was negligent. It was the duty of the appellant to inquire where the said consignments were lost and whether any information to the senders was given by the appellant that the consignments booked by them are lost in transit. But no such efforts have been made by the appellant which is grave illegality/deficiency on the part of the appellant. The appellant cannot take the shelter of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and Section 66-B of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933. It is held by the Hon'ble National First Appeal No. 499 of 2007 8 Commission in "Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bangalore South Division Bangalore and Ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur Sodhi", 2012(2) CPR 338 (NC) in para Nos. 16 and 17 as follows:-
"16. That enquiry report on which, petitioners' defence is based and the same was a material piece of evidence, has neither been placed nor proved on record. As per petitioners own case, speed post parcel booked at Bangalore has reached at its desitnation i.e. Jalandhar Speed Post Centre and thereafter, it was dispatched to Model Town Post Office, Jalandhar. It is the Model Town Post Office, which intimated that article has not been received by it. However, the intimation sent by Model Town Post Office with regard to non-receipt of the parcel has not been placed or proved on record.
17. Further, there is nothing on record to show that any action had been taken by petitioners against its delinquent officials. Merely taking the plea that article has been lost in transit is of no help to the petitioners. They have to establish about the actual loss of the article and also to prove as to at the which point or place, the article in question was lost but the same has not been done in this case.
19. In the above authority, the Hon'ble National Commission also relied upon its own judgment passed in case "Superintendent of Post Offices v. Upuovokta Surakshya Parishad", 1997 (I) CPR II (NC) in which it was held as under:-
"In a number of cases we have noticed that the postal department has been taking shelter under the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act which were enacted as far back as 1898 when the then Government of the day acquired total immunity for any action of the postal department resulting in a loss to the consumer. In fact, through this Section, the then Government made the postal department totally immune from any accountability to the people whom it was serving for consideration, even if such service was subsidized in respect of certain categories letters and postal articles etc. This provision made in 1898 in the Indian Postal Act is totally antiquated and out of tune with the spirit of a democratic Government in a parliamentary system where the actions of the Government functionaries are subject to scrutiny and all such functionaries are accountable for any lapse or misdeed on their part in the discharge of their duty. We, therefore, feel that it is time that a comprehensive review of the Indian Postal Act is undertake so as to incorporate suitable amendments and modifications to bring it in tune with the functioning of a democratic and accountable Government."First Appeal No. 499 of 2007 9
20. It is also held by the Hon'ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Calcutta in case "Senior Superintendent of Post Office versus M/s Rangunj", decided on 8.6.2001, III (2001) CPJ 362, in which it was held that:-
".....in a case of Sudha CS v. The Post Master General, G.P.O. & Ors., reported in II (1997) CPJ 519, and another case decided by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in a case of Sr. Post Master, G.P.O. & Ors. V. Harjinder Singh, reported in I (1997) CPJ 378. Therefore, on the authority of the said decisions and having considered the fact that the speed post is a special contract we think that the case does not come within the purview of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. It appears that the Postal Department has acknowledged the fact that the speed post is a special service of the Department where an undertaking is given for delivery of the article within a fixed time frame. It has further been acknowledged in their Circular dated 10.10.1995 that no provision has been made so far for loss or damage etc. to articles dispatched through speed post. The Forum has extracted the whole of the Circular issued by the Directorate. So, we need not quote it again. Suffice it to say that the speed post is not covered under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and as such the Department cannot avoid liability on the strength of this section."
21. It is also held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case "The Postmaster General Kerala & Ors. Versus Kiron Rasheed"
decided on 31.3.2011, 2011 (2) CPR 43 (NC) in paras No.3 to 7 as follows:-
"3. Coming to the merits, the only substantive ground for challenge to the order of the Kerala State Disputes Redressal Commission is that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the RP/OP incurs no liability for loss, misdelivery or damage/delay in delivery, except when caused fraudulently or willfully. This ground was raised before, and examined in sufficient detail, in the impugned order. The State Commission has very rightly observed that this provision "is not in any way connected with the modernized forms of transactions like speed post, e-mail, money transfer etc."
4. In the case before us, the interview letter for the post of Assistant Manager in the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, was sent to the Complainant/Respondent at Kollam, Kerala by Speed Post. It was (as admitted by RP/OP in the Memorandum of Appeal before the State Commission) sent on 16.8.2005 but delivered to him on 22.8.2005. As the interview was scheduled for 25.8.2005 at Delhi, the Complainant/Respondent was left with no First Appeal No. 499 of 2007 10 choice but to travel by air, incurring extra expenditure. Therefore, both fore below have awarded the air ticket cost in favour of the Complainant.
5. The impugned order has also referred to the notification of 21.1.1999 of the Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts which was relied upon by the Appellant/OP. Under this notification, "In case of delay in delivery of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charges paid." The State Commission has held that this stipulation does not come in the way of the order of the District Forum awarding the cost of air ticket in favour of the Complainant.
6. We are in agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. In the circumstances of this case, the delay in delivery of the communication, though sent by Speed Post, becomes the proximate cause for the expenditure on air travel. Therefore, the order of the District Forum to pay the cost of air ticket was well within its powers under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
7. For the reasons above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. The same is dismissed, both on limitation and merits. The parties shall bear their own costs."
22. As per the above proposition of law, the complaint was maintainable and it is proved that the appellant is deficient in service, as such, they are liable to pay compensation to respondent No. 2. But it is the good luck of the appellant that the respondents had not filed any appeal for the enhancement of the compensation, which was awarded by the District Forum which is a very meager amount and not proportionate as the loss suffered by a student from the hands of the appellant. But we are unable to enhance the same as there is no counter request from the respondents.
23. The order passed by the learned District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal being without any merit is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. The said amount be paid to the respondents in equal share within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No. 499 of 2007 11
24. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 23.5.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
25. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 1,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondents in equal share by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
26. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondents within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
27. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
May 31, 2012. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member