State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nv. Azam vs Bhartiya Dakvibhag Through Post Master ... on 11 January, 2016
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
Appeal No.765/2012
N.U. Azam ... Appellant
Vs.
Postal Department ... Respondents
BEFORE;
HON'BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI S.D. AGARWAL, MEMBER
DATED: 11th JANUARY, 2016
ORDER
The following order of the Bench was delivered by Smt. Neerja Singh, Member.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for appellants.
Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.
None for respondents No.3.
This appeal is by the complainant, aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, dismissing his complaint against the opposite party, post office, in CC No . 436/11.
: 2 :
2. The case of the appellant, who is appointed as an Asstt. Engineer in the MP Power Generation Co. Ltd., is that in February 2010 he was on leave. On 10th February, his employer sent him a registered letter, informing him that he had been promoted. He was asked to join at Shivpuri within 30 days, else the promotion would be cancelled automatically. As he was out of station, his house was locked. Respondent No. 3, the postman, had come to him in January 2010 asking for a tip. He refused to give him any money. The appellant alleges that aggrieved by this, the postman did not deliver the promotion letter. When he rejoined his office, he learnt that such a letter had been sent. He wrote to the respondents No. 1 and 2, enquiring about the whereabouts of the letter and was informed that the post had been delivered. The delivery list presented by the respondent did not have his signature. Due to the wilful act of the postman, he was deprived of his promotion which resulted in a loss of enhanced salary. He has claimed compensation and costs.
: 3 :
3. The respondents state that the letter was delivered to the appellant's sister, as per the appellant's telephonic instructions. They aver that he did not want to receive the letter as he knew he was being sent out of Gwalior on promotion.
4. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. It was held that documents show that the appellant was on unauthorized absence from 14.12.09 to 10.5.10. He joined on 11.5.10 and again stopped going from 8.6.10 to 2.9.10.
He was a regular absentee and was in the habit of avoiding taking letters sent to him by his Department. Had he actually not received the letter, he would have informed his department and asked for extension of the joining date, which he did not do.
5. Heard.
6. The appellant has stated that he did not receive the registered letter. The respondent avers that the postman went to deliver the letter. The premises were locked and the appellant telephonically told the postman to deliver the letter : 4 :
at his sister's residence. They further allege that the appellant purposely avoided taking the letter so that he would not have to go out of Gwalior on promotion. The appellant has denied on affidavit that the letter was received by his sister and has alleged that the delivery sheet is forged with fake signatures.
7. It is an admitted fact that on the date the postman went to deliver the letter, the appellant's premises were locked. The respondents state that the letter was delivered to the appellant's sister on the telephonic instructions of the appellant. First, there is no evidence of the telephonic instructions. No call details have been filed in this regard. There is also no letter or standing instructions of the appellant that in case he is not available, the letters should be delivered to his sister. The signatures in the delivery slip are also not clear. We do not find any evidence which can establish that the letter was delivered to the appellant's sister. Secondly, if the premises were locked, it was incumbent on the postman to return the envelope to the : 5 :
sender. As it was a registered letter, there was no reason for him to deliver it to anyone else.
8. The appellant has stated that the postman deliberately did not deliver the letter because he did not give him a new year tip. The respondent on the other hand state that the appellant purposely avoided taking the letter so that he would not have to go out of Gwalior on promotion. We do not find merit in the respondent's argument. The appellant, who was not in town, could not know what was in the letter sent to him, so the question of avoiding it would not arise. Secondly, on rejoining duty, the appellant has written a letter to his employer, dated 10.5.10, requesting to be relieved from the current post as he is willing to join duty at Shivpuri on promotion. This belies the respondent's averment that he did not want to go out of Gwalior.
9. Though the Forum has held that the appellant was on unauthorized leave from his department, and in the habit of not taking letters sent by them, there is no evidence of the same. If any letter was returned to the sender because the : 6 :
premises were found locked, it cannot be said that the appellant was deliberately avoiding receiving letters.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that as per Section 6 there is complete exemption from any liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of a postal article. It reads as under -
"Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage - The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except insofar 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudently or by his wilful act or default "
11. In the instant case, the postman on finding the premises locked did not return the letter to the sender. He claims that he delivered it to the appellant's sister, but this is also not supported by any evidence. For the reasons already discussed, we find the act of the postman in not delivering to : 7 :
the addressee to be wilful, and the appellant deserves to be compensated for the deficiency in service.
12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the respondents are directed, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the appellant. The respondent shall also bear the cost of this appeal and the same is quantified at Rs.3000/-.
(SMT. NEERJA SINGH) (S.D. AGARWAL) PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER