State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Post Master, Post Office, Near Grain ... vs Sarabjit Singh S/O S. Pritam Singh on 31 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 919 of 2008
Date of institution : 26.8.2008
Date of Decision : 31.10.2012
1. Post Master, Post Office, Near Grain Market, Jalandhar City.
2. Sr. Superintendent of Posts, Head Post Office, Jalandhar
3. Manager, Speed Post Centre, Head Post Office, Saharanpur (UP)
....Appellants.
Versus
Sarabjit Singh S/o S. Pritam Singh, H. No. NN 490, Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 13.6.2008 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex.-parte.
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellants-Post Master, Post Office and others(hereinafter called 'the appellants') against the order dated 13.6.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called 'the respondent') was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had sent a consignment in a bag bearing weight 11000 grams worth Rs. 10,795/- by Speed Post to M/s Fashion Era, Nehru Market, Saharanpur (U.P.) through appellant No. 1 and paid Rs. 222/- as Speed Post charges but the consignment was not delivered by the appellants to the addressee as First Appeal No. 919 of 2008 2 intimated by him. The respondent immediately contacted appellant No. 1, who asked him to contact appellant No. 2, who after checking the status online on Computer told to the respondent that the consignment had been delivered on 6.11.2007 at 0:4:25:03 p.m. from Jalandhar to Saharanpur Headquarter and further delivered to the concerned Post Office at Saharanpur.
3. It was alleged that the respondent had enquired from appellant No. 3 vide application dated 4.12.2007, who replied vide his letter No. SB/Misc./06 dated Saharanpur 26.12.2007 that "it has still not been established that the article U/R was actually received at Saharanpur H.P.O. through department channel. The enquries are being made in the matter."
4. The complaint was filed alleging that the consignment was mis-appropriated by the appellants and the same was not delivered to the consignee, which was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to Rs. 99,682/- as detailed in the prayer clause of the complaint.
5. Upon notice, appellants No. 1 & 2 replied in which the booking of the consignment and charging of Rs. 222/- from the respondent was not denied. It was pleaded that no complaint from the addressee M/s Fashion Era, Saharanpur(UP) had been received by the answering appellants that the addressee had not received the consignment. It was alleged that the a/u/r was received by S.P.C. Saharanpur and no mis-appropriation of the article was committed at S.P.C. Jalandhar and only the S.P.C. Saharanpur and Head Office Saharanpur are liable for the loss of the parcel, if any. It was prayed that the complaint against the answering appellants may be dismissed.
First Appeal No. 919 of 2008 3
6. Notice was sent to appellant No. 3 on 25.1.2008, which was not received back either served or un-served till 3.3.2002, as such, appellant No. 3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 3.3.2002.
7. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent No. 3(opposite party No. 3) to refund the booking charges alongwith price of articles of worth Rs. 10,795/- and also pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
8. Hence, the appeal.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.
10. The present appeal is filed by the appellants on the ground that the order of the District Forum is against the settled law because Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 exempted the officials of the Post Office in case of loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of the postal article, as such, the appellants are not liable to pay any amount to the respondent and the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
11. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondent had booked a consignment weighing 11000 grams with appellant No. 1 in a bag for delivering the same to M/s Fashion Era, Nehru Market, Sultanpur (U.P.) on 5.11.2007 and paid Rs. 222/- as the postal charges of Speed Post.
12. The appellants No. 1 and 2 filed the reply only to the extent that the consignment was sent by them from Jalandhar to Saharanpur, which was received on 6.11.2007 at 4:25:03 p.m. at Saharanpur Head Office and further the same was delivered to concerned office at Saharanpur for the delivery of the same to the addressee. But it is not the First Appeal No. 919 of 2008 4 version of appellants No. 1 & 2 that the same was delivered to the addressee. Rather it is admitted by the appellants No. 1 & 2 that appellant No. 3 is liable for not delivering the consignment to the addressee.
13. The respondent also made an application Ex. C-2 for inquiry on 4.12.2007 to respondent No. 3. The same was replied by the Manager, Speed Post Central, Saharanpur vide Ex. C-4 dated 26.12.2007, which is reproduced:-
"The receipt of your application under R.T.I., Act dt. 4.12.07 is acknowledged. It has still not been established that the article U/R was actually received at Saharanpur H.P.O. through departmental channel. The enquiries are being made in the matter and the final reply will be sent to you in due course."
14. So it is proved beyond any doubt that the consignment was not delivered by the appellants to the addressee and as such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
15. The version of counsel for the appellants is that there is no allegation against the officials of the appellants that the consignment was not delivered to commit fraud or willfully to the addressee, as such, as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898; 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 willful act or default, as such, the appellants are not liable for any compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Subhash Chandra & Anr. Versus Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.", 2009(5) SLR 612, Hon'ble National Commission passed judgment in Revision Petition No. 4603 of 2010 titled as "S. Parameshwar versus Chief Post Master", decided on 10.10.2012 and judgments of this Commission passed in First Appeal No. 312 of 2007 "Kuljinder Kaur versus The Postmaster", decided on 27.7.2012 and First Appeal No. 906 of 2007 First Appeal No. 919 of 2008 5 "Department of Posts versus Roop Chand and another", decided on 26.7.2012.
16. The abovesaid judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case the consignment was not booked by paying the postal charges of Speed Post. It is held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Superintendent of Post Offices v. Upuovokta Surakshya Parishad", 1997 (I) CPR II (NC) 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."
17. 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 para No.3 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."First Appeal No. 919 of 2008 6
18. The Hon'ble National Commission in "Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bangalore South Division Bangalore and Ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur Sodhi", 2012(2) CPR 338 (NC) held in para No. 17 as follows:-
"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. As per the above proposition of law, 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 and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
20. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.10.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
21. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 7,900/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 7,900/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
22. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
23. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
October 31, 2012. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member
First Appeal No. 919 of 2008 7