National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Manger, Speed Post & 2 Ors. vs Bhanwar Lal Gora on 28 August, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 711 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 19/12/2016 in Appeal No. 1238/2016 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. MANGER, SPEED POST & 2 ORS. SPEET POST, G.P.O JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, RAJASTHAN CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 3. THE POST MASTER, POST OFFICE, RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BHANWAR LAL GORA S/O SHRI NARAYAN RAM GORA, WARD NO-14,AMBEDKAR COLONY, RATAN NAGAR CHURU HALL ROO, NO-10, AMBEDKAR HOSTEL, JHALANADUNGARI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. VIJAY CHANDRA JOSHI For the Respondent : MR. ROBIN & LUV MAHAJAN Dated : 28 Aug 2017 ORDER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Rajasthan dated 19.12.2016, whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner opposite party against the order of District Forum, Jaipur III.
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that respondent complainant sent his application form for the appointment to the post of Gram Sewak / Ex Officio Secretary by speed post addressed to Chief Executive Officer, Pali on 03.04.2008. As per the norms, speed post should have been delivered at the address within two days but it was delivered at the office of Chief Executive Officer, Pali on 07.04.2008. The last date for submission of application form was 05.04.2008. Therefore, the application of the complainant was not considered. Claiming, this to be deficiency in service, the complainant filed consumer complaint seeking compensation.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing written statement denying the liability to pay compensation.
4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the consumer complaint and directed as under:
"It is directed to the defendant due to the deficiency caused by the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- ( Rupees fifty thousand only) as mental tension, harassment and economic loss to the plaintiff. As well as the complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- as complaint expenses. One month time is granted for the compliance of the order. During this duration on non compliance of the order, the complainant is entitled to receive interest on the above total amount @ 12% interest from the day of today from the day of passing the order to till today. "
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. This has led to the filing of the revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that aforesaid order has been passed in utter disregard of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 ( in short, the Act) as also circular No.43-4/87 BDD dated 22.01.1999 issued by the General Manager ( Business Development) addressed to all Chief Post Master General issued in furtherance of notification no.GSR 40 (E) dated 21.01.1999 which provides that in the event of delay of delivery of domestic speed post articles beyond the prescribed delivery norms as part of the money back guarantee, the speed post charges paid by the customer would be refunded. Learned counsel has argued that pursuant to the aforesaid circular, the refund of speed post charges of Rs.22/- was offered and paid to the complainant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Commission in bunch of revision petitions including Revision Petition no. 15 of 1997 decided vide common order dated 18.09.2002. Counsel for the opposite party on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and relied upon judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Commission in Revision Petition no. 541 of 2016 titled Department of Post and Ors. Vs. Gajanand Sharma decided on 08.12.2016.
7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.
8. It is not disputed that speed post application was sent by the petitioner to the Chief Executive Officer, Pali on 03.04.2008 which was delivered late after the expiry of prescribed period of two days on 07.04.2008. The Fora below vide concurrent finding have awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for the aforesaid deficiency in service.
9. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, it would be useful to have a look on relevant provisions of Indian Post Office Act, 1898.
Section 6 of the Act provides as under:
"Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage : The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay, 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 wilful act or default".
10. On reading of the above, it is clear that Section 6 of the Act provides for immunity to the Government i.e. Postal Department from any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery of delay or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in cases where any expressed terms the liability is undertaken by Central Government.
11. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to Section 21 of the Indian Post Act, 1898, Indian Post Office Rules 1933 were framed. The said rules, thereafter were amended from time to time. In the year 1986, the rules were amended and Rule 66B was introduced w.e.f. 01.08.1986 which reads as under:
66-B. INLAND SPEED POST SERVICE Inland Postal articles may be booked after obtaining receipts therefore, at the places specified in column (1) of the Schedule below and at the post offices specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Schedule for delivery under the Inland Speed Post Service subject to the following conditions namely:
(1) Inland Speed Post Service shall be available in respect of all classes of mails which can be sent by registered service;
(2) an inland speed post fee of Rs.10/- per article for distance upto 500 km. And of Rs.20 per article, weighing upto 5 kg. with an additional fee of Rs.5 for every additional kg. or part thereof, for distance beyond 500 kms. in addition to the postage and registration fee and air surcharge, wherever applicable shall be prepaid by the sender in the same manner as is prescribed in the case of registered and parcel mail articles;
(3) articles for booking under this service shall prominently bear on the front the superscription INLAND SPEED POST and shall also bear the name and address of the sender in addition to that of the addresses, including the PIN Codes, of the Post Offices of delivery serving the addressee and the sender and their telephone numbers, if any;
(4) complaints regarding any article booked under this service( including a demand for refund of fees in cases of non-delivery of articles within the stipulated time) may be preferred within three months from the date of booking of the article and shall inter alia contain the number of the article, the date of booking and the name of the office of booking;
(5) there will be no delivery of these articles on Sundays and other holidays in the post offices concerned.
Explanation: For the purpose of this rule Inland Speed Post Service means the service which seeks to deliver postal articles within stipulated time, specified in respect of each city or town, as the case may be from time to time, by a special messenger or conveyance. "
12. The above statute rule was further amended by notification no. GSR 40 (E ) dated 21.01.1999. Following condition after condition no. 5 of Rule 55B was inserted:
"In case of any delay of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the Department of Post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charge paid.
In the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000 whichever is less"
13. Pursuant to the norms, the Department of Post issued a circular No.43-4/87 BDD dated 22.01.1999 addressed to all Chief Post Masters General. The relevant portion of the circular is reproduced as under:
a) In the event of delay of domestic Speed Post articles beyond the prescribed delivery norms published from time to time as a part of money back guarantee, the speed post charges paid by the customer will be refunded subject to the condition that:
(i) Delay due to curfew, bandhs and strike etc. will not count as delay in delivery and such days of interruption will be excluded from the total days taken in delivery of articles.
(ii) The article booked beyond cut off time will be counted as booked on the next day and will be marked as Booked after cut off time
b) In the event of loss of Speed Post article, loss of contents or damage to the contents, the compensation payable to the customer will be - double the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- whichever is less.
The loss of article or loss or damages to its contents will first be established on receipt of confirmation to this effect from office of delivery/destination and responsibility fixed and amounts of compensation recovered from the official/s at fault.
But settlement of claim will not be linked with recovery from the official. The sanction order will be issued straightway on receipt of confirmation in respect of loss or damage to contents of the article from delivery end."
14. On reading of the above, it is clear that in the event of delay of domestic speed post article beyond the prescribed delivery norms from time to time as a part of money back guarantee, the speed post charges paid by the customer shall be refunded to him. It is the case of the opposite party that refund of speed post charges was sanctioned and intimation was sent to the complainant to collect the same. Therefore, the act of the opposite party company as per law and rule framed by the Government, cannot be said to be deficiency in service. The Fora below have failed to take note of the above noted provision of law and the gazette notification as also the circular issued to the respective Post Masters General. Therefore, in our view, the impugned order suffer from material irregularity and cannot be sustained. In our aforesaid view we are supported from the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Commission in Revision Petition No.15 of 1997 Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Board Kurukshetra, Haryana & Ors Vs. Vijay Ratan Aggarwal and other connected revision petitions decided on 18.09.2002.
15. In view of the discussion above, we allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint with the observation that if the complainant has not yet received the refund of speed post charges, the opposite party shall pay that amount to him.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... ANUP K THAKUR MEMBER