State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sub Post Master, Post Office vs Ms. Priyanka Jood on 8 June, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.380 of 2007 Date of Institution: 19.08.2007 Date of Decision: 08.06.2011 1. Sub Post Master, Post Office, Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. 2. The Superintendent, head Post Offices, Hisar-125001. Appellants (Ops) Versus Ms. Priyanka Jood daughter of Dr. Ram Singh, Resident of House No.412, Sector 15-A, Hisar-125001. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Namit Kumar, Advocate for appellants. Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.01.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Hisar whereby appellant-opposite parties have been held deficient for not delivering the Speed Post article at the destination in time and granted following relief:-
The respondents are jointly and severally directed to pay in all a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. There is no order as to costs. Compliance of this order be made within a period of two months; failing which the respondents would be liable to pay interest 2 9% per annum from the date of default till its payment.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the respondent-complainant had sent her application form for OCET-2005 (Entrance Test) addressed to the Assistant Registrar, CET (Cell), Panjab University, Chandigarh from the office of opposite party No.1 Sub Post Master, Post Office, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar through speed post vide receipt dated 18.4.2005 against postal charges of Rs.30/-. The last date of receipt of the application was 25.4.2005 but the above said speed post article received back by the complainant on 29.4.2005 with an endorsement refused on 264.2005. In other words, the Speed Post article was not received by the addressee due to the reason that the last date for the application had already expired. The complainant alleged it as deficiency in service on the part of the Postal Authorities because she had sent the application on 18.4.2005 i.e. one week before the last date. Thus, the complainant sought compensation from the opposite parties.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. They denied any kind of deficiency in service in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Both the partied adduced evidence.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, District Forum while accepting the complaint issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.Hence appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellants-opposite parties, it is contended by Shri Namit Kumar, Advocate that in view of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, the appellants-opposite parties shall not incur any liability in respect of the delay in delivery or loss of the article, unless some willful and fraudulent act is not proved against the officials of the department.
Section 6 read with Rule 66-B of the post Office Act, 1898 is reproduced as under:-
The Govt. shall not incur any liability by reasons of loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to except in so far as such liability may in express terms the undertaken by the Central Govt. as hereinafter provided; and no office of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reasons of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that complainant has failed to make out a case of fraudulent and willful act.
While deciding the complaint, District Consumer Forum has mainly relief upon the judgment rendered by State Commission Haryana in case cited as I(1997) CPJ 487 Head Post Master, Post Office, Kurukshetra vs. Vijay Rattan Aggarwal, which has already been set aside by the Honble National Commission in Revision Petition No.15 of 1997 Head Postmaster and others vs. Vijay Rattan Aggarwal, decided on 18.09.2002.
It is not the case of the complainant that there was any willful or fraudulent act on the part of Postal Authorities for delay in delivering the Speed Post article at the destination which was sent by the complainant from Hisar and was to delivered at Chandigarh.
It is well settled principle of law that by sending any article through post, the sender avails a statutory service provided by the Government and if the postage stamps are affixed by the sender but yet those are for augmentation of the Government revenue and it cannot be termed as price paid for the service. In this regard reference is made to case law cited as Union of India and others versus M.L. Bora, 2011 CTJ 27 (CP) (NCDRC), wherein Honble National Commission has observed as under:-
7. Section 6 is in two parts. The first part deals with the liability of the Government and the second part deals with the individual liability of the postal employees. The first part of Section 6 absolves the Government of any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms undertaken by the Central Government as provided by the statue. Second part provides that no office of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
In para 8 of Union of India and others versus M.L. Bora case (Supra) the Honble National Commission held that:-
.....Insofar as the Government is concerned, Section 6 grants complete immunity to the Government of liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to the postal articles. The scope of Section 6 was considered comprehensively by a five Members Bench of this Commission in the case of Post Master, Imphal & Ors v. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, I(2000) CPJ 28 (NC) in which it was held in paras 7,9 and 13 as under:
7. The Section very clearly lays down that 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 insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as provided by the statute 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 willful act or default. There are some provisions in the Act where specifically Government has been made liable to pay compensation for the lost postal articles. For example, Section 33 categorically says that subject to such conditions and restrictions. Central Government shall be liability to pay compensation for insured postal article. But where there is no such specific provision in the Act for payment of compensation, Section 6 grants complete immunity to the Government for liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to the postal articles.
The second part of Section 6 deals with individual liability of the postal employees but states that 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 willful act or default. In this case there is no allegation that the Post Master or the Director or the Director General was guilty of fraud or willful act or willful default which led to non-delivery of the postal articles. An officer of the post office may be held liability for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage if it can be provided that he has causes such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage by some fraudulent act or willful act or default. In other words, the person who has committed the offence can be sued for damage but no action will lie against either the Central Government or any of its officers vicariously for the willful act or default of the dealing clerk or postal peon.
The allegation in this case was that the dealing clerk had negligently sent the parcel as VPL. If that is the allegation, the proceedings should have been taken against the dealing assistant or the postal clerk who was held guilty of this willful default. But the Director General or the Director or the Post Master cannot be made liable vicariously for the willful act or default of the dealing assistant.
9. It is to be noted that the judgments of the Courts are based on two fundamental principles. One is the absolute protection afforded to the Government and also the Government servants who had not dealt with the postal articles themselves by Section 6. The other is the nature of postal service provided by the Government. The postal service provided by the Government extends throughout the territory of India. A letter sent from the remotest village in Kashmir will reach the addressee at the outermost point of Kanyakumari. A vast network has been built by the Government to provide this service. It has been emphasized that by posting a letter or handing over a packet at the post office for transmission to the address of the addressee, the sender does not enter into any contract with the Government. The sender really avails of a service statutorily provided by the Government. It is true that postage stamps have to be affixed but that is for augmentation of Government revenue. It is not in the nature of a price paid for the service.
13. acceptance of the contention of the complainant will lead to disastrous consequences. Assuming that 10 lakh postal articles are posted all over India every day (the figure must be much more) and in 1% cases there is delay in delivery or loss of the postal packet, if the Government has to pay compensation for 1000 delayed packets a day and if, as in this case, compensation of Rs.20,000/- is awarded, the Government will have to pay compensation of Rs.21 crores a day, which will come to Rs.730/- crores a year. No Government can bear the brunt of this sort of liability in rendering a valuable public service to the people.
The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to Union of India and others versus M.L. Bora case (Supra). There is nothing on record on behalf of the complainant that there was any willful or fraudulent act on the part of the officials opposite parties for late delivery of the Speed Post article, though was not received by the addressee as the last date of receipt of the application had already expired. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and the legal proposition of law, no case for deficiency in service against the appellants-opposite parties is made out. The District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the parties and committed grave error in issuing directions to the opposite parties by granting relief as noticed in the first para of this order and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 08.06.2011 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member