State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Postmaster General, vs Jayasudha, on 27 January, 2011
Daily Order
First Appeal No. A/10/287 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/03/2010 in Case No. CC 163/06 of District Kannur) Postmaster General Vs. Jayasudha.P.V BEFORE: SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 27 Jan 2011 ORDER Disposed as Dismissed
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
APPEAL Nos. 287/2010 & 512/2010
JUDGMENT DATED: 27-01-2011
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPEAL No. 287/2010
APPELLANTS
1. Postmaster General,
Northern Region, Kozhikkode.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kannur Division, Kannur.
3. Postmaster,
Payyannur MDG,
Kannur - 670 307.
4. Union of India Represented by
Director General of Posts, New Delhi.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. R.P. Sandeep)
Vs
RESPONDENT
Jayasudha,
'Pournami' Post Ramanthali,
Kannur District.
APPEAL No. 512/2010
APPELLANT
Jayasudha P.V.
'Pournami', Ramanthali P.O.,
Thaliparambu Taluk,
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. K.N. Vikramadithyan Pillai)
RESPONDENTS
1. Postmaster General,
Northern Region, Kozhikkode.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kannur Division, Kannur.
3. Postmaster,
Payyannur MDG,
Kannur.
4. Union of India, Represented by
Director General of Posts, New Delhi.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the order dated 28-03-2010 of CDRF, Kannur in CC No. 163/2006. Appeal No. 287/10 is filed by the opposite parties for setting aside the order whereas Appeal No. 512/2010 is filed by the complainant, who is not satisfied with the compensation ordered by the Forum below.
2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details is that she has sent a consignment to the University of Calicut by speed post through the 3rd opposite party which contained the original of her BA Degree certificate, mark list and a chalan receipt for Rs. 1,130/-. It is submitted that she has sent the same for registering herself for the PG Degree Examination and that the said consignment did not reach the Calicut University and inspite of the lawyer notice sent on 12-05-2005 the opposite parties did not conduct an enquiry into the matter and later on 27-06-2005 the second opposite party sent a format for receiving compensation. Even though the said application for compensation was submitted on 19-07-2005, the opposite parties refused the payment and as she had no other alternative she filed the complaint before the Forum praying for directing to the opposite parties to pay her a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
3. On receipt of notice from the Forum, the opposite parties filed version wherein it was contested that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1988, the Government is exempted from any liability, loss or misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article, which would be lost in transit. It is also their case that they had offered the compensation as per rules and it was the complainant who did not accept the same. It was further submitted that on receipt of the complaint from the complainant regarding the loss of the article they conducted an enquiry and they could not trace out the consignment so far. Contending that there was no deficiency of service they pleaded for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A11 on the side of the complainant. On the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined. It is based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The representative for the appellant in Appeal No. 287/2010 vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is perse illegal and unsustainable. It is argued by him that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Government is exempted from any liability for loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability made in express terms be undertaken by the government and no Officer of the post office shall incur any liability for such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. It is his very case that the complainant has not succeeded in establishing that it was due to any wilfull act or default on the part of any postal official that the consignment sent by the complainant was lost. It is also his case that the valuable documents like the one as argued by the complainant ought to have been insured rather than sending it by speed post as any other item. The representative of the appellants vehemently argued before us that the Indian Post Office Rules specifically say that compensation for the loss of a speed post article shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is less. He has also relied on the true copy of notification NO. GSR 40 (E) dated 21-01-99 inorder to substantiate his case that the opposite parties are liable to pay only double the amount of the speed post charges or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is less.
7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellant in Appeal 512/2010 who is also the respondent in Appeal 287/2010 argued for the position that the compensation ordered by the Forum below is very much on the lower side as the complainant has lost her valuable certificates in original and that she had lost a valuable year of her educational career. He has stressed the point that the above said articles were irrecoverably lost and though the opposite parties informed that an enquiry was conducted the enquiry report was not produced before the Forum below or before this Commission. It is also his case that even after returning the filled in format to the opposite parties, the opposite parties failed to pay the compensation and the above facts and circumstances would indicate that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- prayed for by the complainant ought to have been ordered by the Forum below. He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Post and Telegraph Department Vs Sarada [2001 (3) KLT 809] and argued before us that the exemption granted u/s 6 of the Post Office Act cannot be made applicable in the instant case as the immunity to the postal authorities and to Union of India from liabilities for the loss of any postal article in the course of transmission by post is limited to loss to government and not loss to the owner of postal article. He canvassed for the position that the amount ordered by the Forum below is very much on the lower side and same is to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- itself and the opposite parties be directed to pay the said sum with interest and costs.
8. On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant in both appeals, who are the respective Counsels for respondents also, we find that it is the admitted case of all the parties that the complainant had sent the consignment containing the original of the BA Degree certificate, mark list and the chalan for Rs. 1,130/- and the same is lost in transmit while it was being forwarded to the University of Calicut by speed post. The Forum below had discussed the various aspects of the case in detail and they have found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is found that in this case the complainant had irrecoverably lost her valuable originals of the BA Degree certificate and mark list. Though the same could be obtained by an application for duplicate copies it is further to be found that she had lost the opportunity for registering herself for the PG Degree examination during the relevant year. It is also to be noticed that though the opposite parties have stated that they have conducted an enquiry on receipt of a complaint, the enquiry report is not produced either before the Forum or before this Commission which indicates that they are trying to conceal some material information regarding the loss of the consignment sent by the complainant. As a sequel to the above it is our considered view that the opposite parties have found out the real person responsible for the loss of the articles and it is only to defeat the claim of the complainant that they are arguing that the complainant was not successful in establishing that the loss was on account of the willful act of any particular official of the opposite parties. We are also of the opinion that after the consignment is entrusted to the postal officials, the sender will be helpless in finding out at which point the loss occurred and on whose shoulder the liability has to be fixed. Definitely it is the duty of the postal Department to find out the reason for the loss of the article entrusted to them and they cannot wash off their hands saying that they are protected under Section 6 of the Post Office Act or that they are liable to pay only double the charges collected or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is less.
We find that the Forum below has ordered the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/-. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. In the said circumstances, both appeals are liable to be dismissed and we do so accordingly.
In the result, both appeals are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of these appeals, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. However it is made clear that the opposite parties are to pay the amounts ordered by the Forum below within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they are liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Sr. [ SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR] PRESIDING MEMBER