National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Post Master, Sub Post Office vs Ajay Goyal on 29 November, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3056 OF 2012 (From the order dated 8.6.2012 in Appeal No. 631/2007 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) 1. Post Master, Sub Post Office Near Court Road, Sunam District Sangrur Punjab 2. Post Office, Head Office Branch, Sangrur Through its Head Post Master 3. Union of India Ministry of Communications, Through its Secretary, Post & Telegraph Deptt., New Delhi Petitioners/Opp. Parties (OP) Versus Ajay Goyal, S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar Goyal R/o H. No. 232, Aggarwal, Street No. 4, Peer Banan Banol Road, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur. (Pb) Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO PRONOUNCED ON 29th November, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 8.6.2012 passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 631 of 2007 Post Master, Sub Post Office & Ors. Vs. Ajay Goyal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filled an application form for admission in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and for that purpose obtained bank draft for Rs.3300/-. Complainant sent his application along with bank draft through Regd. post on 22.6.2006 and paid Rs.30/- as postal charges and thus availed services of OP/petitioner. Regd. letter neither reached the destination, nor returned back to the complainant in spite of repeated inquiries. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for refund of Rs.3300/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-. OP/petitioner resisted complaint and submitted that as per provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, OP is not liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless it is caused due to fraudulent or wilful act or default on the part of OP. It was further submitted that ex-gratia amount of Rs.100/- was sent in favour of the complainant on 17.10.2006 and denied any deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Respondent did not appear even after service.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner finally at admission stage and perused record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted fraudulent or wilful act or default has neither been pleaded by the respondent, nor proved; even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
6. Perusal of record proves that respondent through Regd. post sent application along with draft to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India through petitioner and paid Rs.30/- for availing services. It is also proved that this letter neither reached to the destination i.e. Institute of Chartered Accountant of India, nor returned back to the respondent.
7. The question is whether petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act.
Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act reads as under:
6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. 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 in so far a such liability may in express terms by undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; 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.
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Perusal of aforesaid provision makes it clear that petitioner cannot be held liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless it has been caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default of petitioner. Perusal of complaint clearly reveals that respondent has nowhere pleaded in the complaint that loss of postal article was due to fraudulent act or wilful act or default on the part of petitioner. Thus, it becomes clear that respondent has neither pleaded nor proved loss or misdelivery of the registered article due to fraudulent wilful act or default on the part of petitioner and in such circumstances, as per provision of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, petitioner cannot be held responsible for any liability.
Petitioner has already sanctioned Rs.100/- ex-gratia for non-delivery of article.
9. Coordinate Bench in R.P. No. 433/2013 Ajaypal Vs. Post Office, Railway Station decided on 17.7.2013 and R.P. No. 4574/2012 Malkait Singh Vs. The Sudtt. Head PO & Anr. decided on 16.8.2013 has dismissed complaints after providing shelter of provision under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act.
10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petition is to be allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent did not appear before the Commission, as he has already received Rs.5500/- from the State Commission deposited by the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- sent by the petitioner as per order dated 30.1.2013 as to and fro and allied expenses meaning thereby, respondent has already received Rs.10,500/-. It is the choice of the respondent to appear or not after receiving to and fro expenses.
As far as Rs.5500/- is concerned, petitioner is free to recover the amount from the respondent.
11. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 8.6.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 631 of 2007 Post Master, Sub Post Office & Ors. Vs. Ajay Goyal and order of District Forum dated 26.3.2007 passed in Complaint No. 466/06 Ajay Goyal Vs. Postmaster, Sub Post Office & Ors. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k