National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Supdt. Of Post Offices vs Atma Ram on 19 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)CPJ37(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 11.2.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttaranchal, Dehradun, modifying the order dated 7.7.1999 of a District Forum and reducing the amount of compensation payable by the petitioners/opposite parties from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000
2. In short, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. On 27.12.1995, respondent/complainant No. 1 sent a registered letter to his son- complainant No. 2 (not arrayed as party in this revision) then staying at Kshetriya Gram Vikas Sansthan, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar. The letter contained original High School mark sheet, High School certificate, Intermediate certificate, B.A. mark sheet, domicile certificate and employment exchange registration certificate, etc. However, respondent's son did not receive that letter. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed against the petitioners/opposite parties. In written version it is pleaded that the letter in question was delivered on 2.1.1996. In the affidavit filed in support of written version, Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Postman, averred that on 2.1.1996 the letter was delivered to Rakesh Kumar, room partner of the respondent's son as he was not at the room; respondent's son had instructed him that in his absence, his letters be given to Rakesh Kumar. The District Forum holding the petitioners deficient in service in unauthorisedly delivering the letter to Rakesh Kumar, allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioners to pay amount of Rs. 20,000 by way of compensation. In appeal filed by the petitioners while affirming the order of District Forum the State Commission reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 10,000.
3. Submission advanced by Mr. Rajeev Bansal for petitioners was that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the complaint itself was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decision in Post Master General and Ors. v. Nisha Rauthan, R.P. No. 3502 of 2003, decided on 14.2.2005 by this Commission. Submission has considerable merit. Said Section 6 runs as under:
The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, mis-delivery or delay in 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.
4. Copy of the complaint is at pages 49 and 50. Bare reading thereof would show that it is not even remotely pleaded therein that Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Postman delivered the letter in question to Rakesh Kumar fraudulently or wilfully. In absence of pleading to that affect the case would not fall under the second part of above Section 6. First part of the section grants complete immunity to the Government for liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to a postal Article . Though bar of Section 6 was specifically taker by the petitioners in Memo of Appeal but was not considered by the State Commission. Aforesaid decision which also notices the previous cases decided by this Commission, squarely covers the controversy on hand. Order passed by Fora below being legally erroneous thus deserve to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. Resultantly, while allowing revision, orders passed by Fora below are set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.