National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2(2007)CPJ60(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum, where the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 (since deceased) had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner as well as State Bank of India, Dharmshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (SBI, Dharamshala) and State Bank of India, Sansad Marg, New Delhi (SBI, New Delhi).
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that late Mr. Rajnish Awasthi with a view to help Mr. Naresh Sharma, the third respondent, made a draft of Rs. 25,000 from SBI, Dharamshala, payable at SBI, New Delhi in favour of Mr. Naresh Sharma. This draft was sent by registered post by late Mr. Rajnish Awasthi to Mr. Naresh Sharma but it was never delivered. When Mr. Rajnish Awasthi approached the Postal Authorities they asked him to make an application for grant of compensation. This was done but when nothing was coming out of this, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, passed the following order:
Therefore, we order that respondents shall pay amount of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. The entire amount shall be paid by the respondents within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till the amount is paid or deposited in this Forum. The copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs. This petition stands disposed of. The file after due completion be consigned to the record-room.
3. Aggrieved by this order, both the respondents, namely, the State Bank of India as well as Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Posts and Telegraph filed two separate appeals and both of them were dismissed.
4. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us by Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Posts and Telegraph.
5. Despite issue of notice to the L.Rs. of one of the original complainants, i.e., late Mr. Rajnish A wasthi as also to Mr. Naresh Kumar--one of the original complainants, none appeared on their behalf, hence they are proceeded ex parte.
6. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The basic facts are not disputed.
The main argument of the petitioner is that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, they cannot be held liable unless a wilful negligence is alleged by the complainants. We have gone through the complaint as also the provisions of law. We find there is no allegation of wilful negligence in the complaint, hence as severally held by us, the petitioner cannot be held liable for any loss/ non-delivery in view of the provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Hence the Revision Petition has to be allowed qua, the petitioner.
7. Learned Counsel for the State Bank of India has brought to our notice, that in terms of the order passed by the District Forum, a draft of Rs. 25,000 has been handed over to Mr. Naresh Sharma, in whose name the draft had been taken out by Mr. Rajnish Awasthi (since deceased). It appears that perhaps on account of this reason, none has appeared on behalf of the complainants.
8. This revision petition is allowed and complaint is dismissed, qua the petitioner.