State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Superintendent Post Offices vs Ashok Kumar Garg on 22 November, 2012
THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 22.11.2012 First Appeal No.1023/2001 Superintendent Post Offices Appellant New Delhi Central Division, Meghdoot Bhavan, New Delhi-110001. Versus 1.
Ashok Kumar Garg Respondents BE-358/3, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064.
2.Life Insurance Corpn. Ltd.
Branch No. 118, 64, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
3.Life Insurance Corpn. Of India B-1, Community Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058.
CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Mr. V.K. Gupta Member(Judicial)
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Mr. V.K. Gupta, Member(Oral)
1. This appeal by OP No.3 of the case No. 3207/99 is directed against the order dated 29.11.2000 of the District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi issuing direction to the appellant to pay Rs. 20,000/- alongwith the interest @ 15% p.a. w.e.f. 9.3.88 and Rs. 10,000/- as cost.
2. Against this order, Post Office, the OP No.3 of the complaint case preferred the appeal which was registered as 1023/2001 in the State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 24.11.06 modified the order dated 29.11.00 of the District Forum that instead of the Post Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, the OP No. 1 & 2 in the complaint case are liable to pay the amount.
3. Against the order dated 24.11.06 of the State Commission, the LIC preferred the Revision Petition No. 2939/07 before the Honble National Commission which vide order dated 01.11.11, set aside the order dated 24.11.06 of the State Commission and remitted the case back to the State Commission to decide inter se liability of the LIC and the Supdt. Post Office as to who should pay the amount.
4. Under these circumstances this appeal has come before us for adjudication.
5. Brief facts are that Shri Ashok Kumar Garg filed a compliant before the District Forum, Janakpuri with the allegation that he is a policy holder of Policy No. 111590275 dated 01.01.93 for an insured amount of Rs. One lac. The said policy was issued by the LIC, the OP NO. 1 & 2, and according to the terms and conditions of the policy, Rs. 20,000/- was to be paid to the complainant as survival benefits in January,
98. The complainant completed all the formalities but he had not received any payment from respondent No. 1 &
2. However, it came to his knowledge that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been paid by the LIC to some other person for which the immediate information was given but nothing was done. The complainant came to know in February, 99 that a cheque issued by the LIC in respect of the survival benefit has been encashed by some other person namely Shri Ashok Kumar Garg(not the complainant). The complainant informed the LIC and requested for the payment of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith the interest w.e.f. 01.01.98 and also damages.
6. The OP No.1 filed the written statement and admitted the policy. It was further admitted that the complainant was entitled to survival benefit of Rs. 20,000/- in January, 98 and the said payment had been made to the complainant vide cheque No. 179460 dated 28.02.98 by registered post in the name of complainant Shri Ashok Kumar Garg drawn on Bank of India, Janpath, New Delhi. The cheque was dispatched by registered post by postal receipt No. 1130 dt. 09.03.98 at the recorded address of the complainant being BE-358/3, Hari Nari Nagar, New Delhi-64.
7. The OP No.3 i.e. the appellant also filed the written statement and urged that registered letter No. 1130 was booked by Eastern Court Post Office on 9.3.98 Shri Ashok Kumar Garg, New Delhi. The said registered letter was entrusted to the area postman for its delivery to the addressee from 12.3.98 to 16.3.98 on each working day because the registered letter was returned by the postman due to non-availability of the addressee. However, on 16.3.98, the postman was told by the servant that Shri Ashok Kumar Garg is available at A-2/52, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-63. Therefore the postman re-directed the same at the address given by the servant and the registered letter was delivered on 19.3.98 to Shri Ashok Kumar Garg at Paschim Vihar address. On query, it was found that the recipient of the payment who was having the same name as Ashok Kumar Garg, has since expired.
8. The District Forum vide order 29.11.00 came to the conclusion that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the post office, therefore, directed the payment of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest on 15% p.a. w.e.f. 9.3.98 and Rs. 10,000/- as damages against which the present appeal has been preferred by the post office.
9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
10. At the outset, it may be mentioned that as per order dated 01.11.11 of the Honble National Commission, we have to adjudicate upon the controversy as to who is liable for the payment of the aforesaid amount. Whether it is the LIC or the post office who should pay the amount?
11. The Ld. Counsel for the appellate i.e. the post office submitted that the post office is not responsible in any manner for the wrong delivery if any, made by the post office. On the other hand, it is argued that the LIC has already sent a cheque by the registered post and only the post office made the wrong delivery by having the foul play.
12. In this case, the registered letter containing the cheque for Rs. 20,000/- was sent by the LIC to Shri Ahok Kumar Garg specifically mentioning the address as BE-358/3, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-64. The postman who is the agent of the appellate has not delivered this letter to Shri Ahok Kumar Garg at this address as he was not found till 16.3.98, but on the same day, someone told the postman that Shri Ashok Kumar Garg is available at A-2/52, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-63. Therefore the postman re-directed the said registered letter containing the cheque on this address. The said letter was not delivered to Shri Ashok Kumar Garg who is the complainant in this case but it was delivered to some other person co-incidentally having the same name but having different address who encashed the same. There is nothing on the material to show as to who was the person who told the postman that Shri Ashok Kumar Garg i.e. the complainant has shifted to another place to Paschim Vihar instead of Hari Nagar. The postman by mischief and having foul play, delivered the said letter to some other person at a different address, but having the same name.
13. This controversy was set at rest the Honble Kerala High Court in Post & Telegraph Department vs Sarada 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 28 wherein it has been held that the registered letter sent and the employee of the postman postal department instead of delivering the letter to the addressee, fraudulently removed the letter and demand draft and encashed the draft.
In such case, the Government was liable to compensate for the loss sustained by the owner as a result of the willful wrong committed by its employee. It was further held that the loss contemplated u/s S.6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 is a loss to the Govt. And not loss to the owner of postal article.
14. It may be stated that when a postal official willfully or fraudulently does anything which results in the loss of damages, he commits breach of a statutory duty in the discharge of his function on behalf of the State. The State, being the employer, cannot avoid its responsibility for the willful wrong done by the employee to the members of the public.
15. The case in hand, the mischief and the foul play is committed by the postman who is the employee of the postal department and instead of delivering the registered letter containing the cheque to the rightful addressee, delivered to some other person at different address, but having the same name. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality or regularity in the impugned order of the District Forum, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
16. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
17. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned after completing necessary formalities and obtaining the proper receipt.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (V.K. Gupta) Member(Judicial) ysc