State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Post Master,Sankarankovil Post ... vs Arun Kumar,S/O. Arunagiri,6/B, ... on 30 December, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBER FA.227/2011, F.A.228/2011 & F.A.229/2011 DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011 COMMON ORDERF.A.227/2011
[Against order in C.C.3/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Tirunelveli]
1. The Post Master, | Appellant / Opposite Parties Sankarankovil Post Office, | Tirunelveli District. | |
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, | Kovilpatti. | Vs. |
1. Arun Kumar, | Respondents/Complainants S/o. Arunagiri, | 6/B, Ambedkarnagar New 2nd Street, | Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. | |
2. The General Secretary, | Tamil Nadu Peoples Consumer Federation, | Tirunelveli. | Counsel for the Appellants/Ops.
: M/s.B.Sekar, Advocate.
For the R1 & R2/Complainants : Served Absent.
F.A.228/2011[Against order in C.C.4/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Tirunelveli]
1. The Post Master, | Appellant / Opposite Parties Sankarankovil Post Office, | Tirunelveli District. | |
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, | Kovilpatti. | Vs. |
1. K. Esakkirajan, | Respondents/Complainants S/o.S. Kandasamy, | 2-2-34, East Chekkadi Street, | Seevanallur 627 803, Sengottai. | |
2. The General Secretary, | Tamil Nadu Peoples Consumer Federation, | Tirunelveli. | Counsel for the Appellants/Ops.
: M/s.B.Sekar, Advocate.
For the R1 & R2/Complainants : Served Absent.
F.A.229/2011[Against order in C.C.5/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Tirunelveli]
1. The Post Master, | Appellant / Opposite Parties Sankarankovil Post Office, | Tirunelveli District. | |
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, | Kovilpatti. | Vs. |
1. I. Murugan, | Respondents/Complainants Fire Service Department, | Sankarankovil, | 17-86-A, Swaminathapuram, | Kanyakumari District. | |
2. The General Secretary, | Tamil Nadu Peoples Consumer Federation, | Tirunelveli. | Counsel for the Appellants/Ops.
: M/s.B.Sekar, Advocate.
for the R1 & R2/Complainants : Served Absent.
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite parties in C.C.3/2008, C.C.4/2008 and C.C.5/2008 on the file of the District Forum, Tirunelveli, are the appellants in F.A.227/2011, F.A.228/2011 and F.A.229/2011 respectively.
2. In all the cases, though complainant is different, opposite parties are one and the same and the facts alleged in the complaints and the defence raised by the opposite parties, are one and the same and therefore, as agreed, all the appeals are taken together and common order is passed, taking into account the common facts and defence.
3. Facts [common in all the cases]:
The complainant[s] have submitted applications to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, for Combined Sub-ordinate Services Examination-I-2007, to be held on 17.11.2007 and 18.11.2007, by paying necessary amounts by Speed Post, through the first opposite party, as show in the Table:-
Sl.No. Complainants Name C.C.No. F.A.No. Date of sending application Code No. for Speed Post Amount Paid [Rs.]
01.
A. Arun Kumar 3/2008 227/11 19.07.2007 SPET 490938956 IN 34/-
02. K. Esakkirajan 4/2008 228/11 19.07.2007 SPET 490939792 IN 34/-
03. I. Murugan 5/2008 229/11 19.07.2007 SPET 490939948 IN 34/-
4. The complainants have received their applications, from TNPSC, as if, the applications have not reached in time, that is on or before 31.07.2007 at 5.45 p.m., further informing, they have received only on 02.08.2007. Because of the delayed delivery and return of the applications, the complainants were unable to write the examination, on 17/18.11.2007 and the opposite parties have committed negligence, as well as deficiency in service in not delivering the applications, in time though the applications were sent in advance, thereby they have caused mental agony, which is quantified at Rs.1 lakh, further the complainants have incurred loss since they were denied the chance to write the competitive examination. Thus alleging, all the complainants have filed for the recovery of Rs.11 lakhs in all each in the above said CCs.
5. Defence [Common]:-
The opposite parties, admitting the booking of Speed Post Article, addressed to the Controller of Examination, TNPSC on 19.07.2007, as well the delivery of the same on 02.08.2007, resisted the case inter alia contending that the complainants are not consumers, that the Speed Posts were misplaced in transport, due to over sight and heavy burden of duty, not causing any intentional delayed delivery, that for the delayed delivery, the complainants are not entitled to claim anticipated loss, branding the same as compensation and that they are protected under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, and therefore, the claim is not maintainable in view of the further fact, they are not guilty of fraud or willful act or willful default, thereby praying for the dismissal of all the complaints.
6. The District Forum based upon the documents filed by the complainants as well as based upon the admitted facts, came to the conclusion that the Speed Post Article was not delivered in time, there was deficiency in service and that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act will not absolve from them from paying compensation for deficiency in service, that admittedly the examination for which the complainants have applied was postponed, thereby causing no prejudice to the complainants and that however for the deficiency committed by the opposite parties, they should be directed to pay compensation and costs. In this view, in all the applications, separate directions were issued, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation, for mental agony due to deficiency in service, as well a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs, as per the orders dated 23.02.2010, which are challenged, by the opposite parties as said above.
7. The complainant[s] though obtained an order in their favour for the alleged deficiencies said to have been committed by the opposite parties, failed to appear before this Commission, in all the appeals, and they were called absent. However, it is the duty of this Commission to consider the appeals on merit irrespective of the fact, whether the complainants have come before us or not and therefore, all the appeals are disposed on merit.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that though there was a delay in delivering the Speed Post sent by the first complainant, in all the complaints, that will not give any cause of action to claim, compensation on the basis of the deficiency in service in view of the protection given to the Post Office under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that in order to over come the exemption given under Section 6 of the Act, the complainant should establish that the delay was caused by the Postal Department or the person concerned, fraudulently or by his willful act or default, which are all absent in this case even by plea and therefore, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act squarely applicable, to the present case even as held by the National Commission, which was not at all taken into account by the District Forum and the District Forum is repeatedly issuing this kind of erroneous orders, which are all not challenged by the respondents. To appreciate the above fact, now we have to remember the fact.
9. It is the common case of the parties, that all the complainants have sent their applications, for written examination, to TNPSC as shown in the Table on 19.07.2007, by paying the requisite fee as indicted therein. It is also an admitted fact, that the Speed Post articles were delivered to the TNPSC on 02.08.2007. It is not in dispute, that the complainants have submitted their applications to write an examination to be conducted on 17.11.2007 or 18.11.2007, for which, the last date for receipt of the application was 31.07.2007 at 5.45 p.m. In the ordinary course, the Speed Post Article registered on 19.07.2007 should have reached on or before 31.07.2007. In all the cases, as proved by the documents filed by the complainants, deliveries were affected only on 02.08.2007 and admitting the same, the opposite parties would contend that due to misplacing of the articles or due to over working, they were unable to deliver the article in time, thereby they have also admitted their defect or deficiency in service, as the case may be. In this case, though each complainant had claimed Rs.11 lakhs, that was negatived, considering the fact, the examination was admittedly postponed, not causing any prejudice to the complainants also. Therefore, the anticipated loss of income, if the complainants were permitted to write the examination, would have secured job all will go, as rightly observed by the district Forum. However, there is a deficiency and therefore, we have to see, whether the complainants are entitled to any compensation, for this deficiency, whether on the basis of mental agony or otherwise.
10. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, exemption from liability, for delayed delivery is given to the Post Office under Section 6. There is no plea of fraud or willful default or fraud, as if, committed by the opposite parties, in the complaint. Therefore, when that is not pleaded and proved, automatically, Section 6 of the IPO comes to the aid of the opposite parties, in addition to subsequent notification issued by the Postal Department for Speed Post. Unfortunately, the District Forum not reading the Section properly and not going through the decision of the National Commission or this Commission, closing its eye, arbitrarily and illegally taking a view, that Section 6 of the IPO will not absolve them, from the liability of paying compensation for the deficiency in service, even without making an attempt to say, how Section 6 of the IPO is not applicable, how Section 6 has not given protection to the Post Office. Passed orders, for which, we are unable to give our approval, in the absence of any explanation, for not applying Section 6 and we conclude, the District Forum is commit error, repeatedly despite the fact, the same kind of order was reversed, previously by this Commission.
11. This Commission had an occasion to consider not only Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, but also the Notification issued by the Department of Posts from time to time, wherein, this Commission has taken the view relying upon the dictum of the National Commission, that Section 6 of the IPO gives protection to the Post Office, and on facts also, the complainants have not brought the Post Office within the ambit of the Section, as held in F.A.161/2010, dated 29.06.11, which we are bound to follow, since based upon the National Commission rulings. In the above said decision itself, we have considered the Gazette Notification issued by the Department of Post, wherein, they have contemplated in the case of delay in delivery of domestic Speed Post article, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to composite speed post charges paid and applying the principal laid down by the National Commission, as well as applying Notification for the admitted delayed delivery, the complainants are entitled to only the actual amount paid by them, as well costs since even after reporting the delayed delivery, they have not offered to pay the amount. Therefore, the order of the District Forum, awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- are disproportionate and erroneous and all the orders require modification.
12. In the result, all the appeals are allowed and setting aside the order of the District Forum and modifying the orders in C.C.3/2008, C.C.4/2008 and C.C.5/2008 directing the opposite parties to pay only a sum of Rs.34/- [being the composite speed post charges paid] with costs of Rs.1,000/- to each complainant [s] directing the parties to bear their costs in these appeals.
J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT