State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India vs Dharampal Singh on 8 July, 2010
Misc.case no.83/2010 in Appeal No.1759/2008 Union of India V. Dharampal Singh Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Mr.Sashi Kumar Pareek-Member Shri Yashwant Kankhedia,counsel for the petitioners Shri Vishnu Dutt Joshi,counsel for the respondent Date of Judgement: 08.07.2010 BY THE STATE COMMISSION This misc. application has been filed by the Post & Telegraph Department in appeal no.1759/2008 filed by the petitioners appellants which was dismissed in default on 27.1.2010 with a prayer that the appeal no.1759/2008 which was dismissed in default be restored to its original number. Alongwith that application an affidavit has been filed and the learned counsel for the complainant respondent has no objection also.
2. When this being the position,the restoration application is allowed and the order dated 27.1.2010 by which the appeal of the appellants petitioners was dismissed in default is quashed and set aside and the appeal no.1759/2008 is restored to its original 2 number.
Appeal No.1759/2008
3. This appeal has been filed by the appellants which were ops before the District Forum-I,Jaipur against the order dated 8.7.08 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur in complaint no.609/2007,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as amount of compensation for mental agony and further to pay Rs.2000/- as amount of cost of litigation and further if the above amount was not paid within one month the rate of interest charged would be @ 12% p.a and further it was observed that the above amount be realised from the defaulting officials of the appellants department.
It may be stated here that the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants before the District Forum-I,Jaipur on 21.5.07 interalia stating that he had applied for the post of Constable(Driver) in the office of the Police Commissioner,Delhi and alongwith that application an envelope was also filled in by the complainant respondent in which his address was mentioned and that envelope was despatched to the office of the Police Commissioner,Delhi under UPC. It was further stated in the complaint that a letter dated 10.4.07 was issued by the office of the Police Commissioner,Delhi to the complainant respondent allotting his roll number and he was called upon by the Police Department,Delhi on 25.4.07 at Delhi for Measurement Test.
It was further stated in the complaint that the said letter was despatched by the post office,Delhi on 13.4.07 and that was 3 sent through UPC and that letter was received by the appellant no.2 on 3.5.07 at Kotputli and that letter was further fowarded by appellant no.2 after putting his seal dated 3.5.07 but that letter was delivered to the complainant respondent on 8.5.07 and the date of 25.4.07 had expired and because of that the complainant respondent could not appear before the office of the Police Commissioner for measurement test and thus the letter in question was delivered with delay by the office of the appellants and for that deficiency the complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the appellants on 4.7.07 before the District Forum-I,Jaipur and the case of the appellants was that the letter in question was received in the post office at Kotputli on 3.5.07 and the same was delivered on the same day and thus there was no delay and further protection u/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act of 1898 was sought and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 8.7.08 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that the letter in question to the complainant respondent was despatched by the post office at Delhi on 13.4.07 and the date for the measurement test was 25.4.07,that letter had reached at Kotputli post office on 3.5.07 and since a letter which was despatched from Delhi on 13.4.07 and if the same had reached at Kotputli on 3.5.07,therefore, that delay could not be explained and further the same could not be said to be justified delay and further in such a case protection u/s 6 of the Act was not available to the appellants.
4. Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants.
45. In this appeal,the following contentions have been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants:
that no doubt,in the envelope the name of the complainant respondent as Dharam Pal Jat was mentioned, but in the letter addressed to the complainant respondent by the office of the Police Department,Delhi the name Bharam Pal Jat was mentioned,therefore,that letter had no concern with the complainant respondent.
that protection U/S.6 of the Act of 1898 should have been made available to the appellants.
that if the Commission comes to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants,the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum was on higher side and that should be reduced and it was prayed that the appeal be allowed.
6. On the other hand,the learned counsel for the complainant respondent has supported the impugned order.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In this case,there is no dispute on the point that the letter in question was despatched by the Delhi Post Office on 13.4.07 as is evident from the seal on the envelope and further the same was received in the post office at Kotputli on 3.5.07 is also not in dispute and that date is also visible on the envelope in question.
9. If a letter was issued from Delhi Post Office on 13.4.07 and if the same had reached at Kotputli on a place nearabout 160 kms from Delhi that delay in any manner could not be justified on the 5 part of the appellants and thus in delivering the letter to the complainant respondent on 3.5.07 the deficiency in service on the part of the appellants is well established.
10. So far as the question that in the letter dated 10.4.07 the name of Bharam Pal Jat was mentioned,that would make no difference as in the envelope the name of the complainant respondent Dharam Pal Jat was mentioned. Thus this argument also stands rejected.
11. So far as the protection u/s 6 of the Act,1898 is concerned, it may be stated here that S.6 of the Act reads 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 by 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 fraudulent or by his wilful act or default."
12. It must be borne in mind that S.6 of the Act of 1898 only saves the Central Government from the liability of a common carrier. It does not empower the postal department and its officers to do whatever they like with the postal article entrusted to them and then to claim immunity from liability for loss,misdelivery etc. of that article. Thus,this section does not provide a blanket exemption to the postal authorities from liability for loss or 6 misdelivery.
13. It may further be stated here that S.6 of the Act of 1898 does not contain an absolute exemption. The Hon'ble National Commission in a case of Superintendent of Post Offices V. Upuovokta Surakshya Parishad,1997(1) CPR II NC has observed as under:
"In a number of cases we have notices that the postal department has been taking shelter under the provision of S.6 of the Indian Postal Act which were enacted as far back as 1890 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 subsidised in respect of certain categories letters and postal articles etc. This provision made in 1890 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 undertaken so as to incorporate suitable amendments and modifications to bring it in tune with the functioning of a democratic and accountable Government."
14. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the National Commission, this Commission is of the view that 7 sending a letter through UPC is a special contract which does not come within the perview of section 6 of the Act,1898 as special consideration is paid to the department of the appellants for delivering the letter quickly. Thus,the appellants were under special obligation for quick delivery of such letter in question in which they had failed and thus, deficiency in service on the part of the appellants was fully established and the appellants would not be entitled to protection u/s 6 of the Act,1898 and thus, the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was allowed, are liable to be confirmed one as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity,illegality and perversity and this argument also stands rejected and this appeal deserves to be dismissed so far as the merits of the case is concerned.
On point of compensation.
15. The District Forum had awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest and further Rs.2000/- as amount of cost of litigation.
16. It may be stated here that while prefering this appeal,the appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.11,000/-. This Commission is of the view that the complainant respondent should be allowed Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum in place of the amount awarded by the District Forum.
For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed on merits,but on point of compensation the appeal is partly allowed in the manner that the appellants would pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum in place of the amount awarded by the District Forum. The complainant respondent is free to withdraw the amount of Rs.11,000/-
8deposited with the office of the District Forum-I,Jaipur with interest that had accrued on it and two months' time is given to the appellants for making the remaining amount of Rs.4000/- to the complainant respondent.To the above extent the impugned order dated 8.7.08 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur stands modified.
Member Member President A/G