State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sr. Supdt. Post & Telegraph vs M.L. Gupta & Anr. on 18 July, 2008
H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUSTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA, CAMP AT NAHAN.
FIRST
APPEAL NO.20/2008.
DATE
OF DECISION: 18.7.2008.
Senior
Superintendent Post and Telegraph
Department
Circle at Solan, H.P.
Appellant.
Versus
1.
Sh.
M.L. Gupta son of Sh. Hans Raj Gupta,
R/O House No.5/208, Shamsherpur, Paonta Sahib,
District Sirmour, H.P.
. Respondent.
2.
Senior
Deputy General of Accountant General (A&E)
Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
Proforma respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel
(Retd.), President.
Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether approved for
reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. H.S. Shah, Advocate.
for
respondent No.1.
Mr.
B.S. Thakur and
Mr.
Karan Chaudhary, Advocates,
for
respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also examined the record of the complaint file.
2. Facts are by and large admitted which otherwise are also clearly established from the documents placed by the parties on the complaint file. General Provident Fund (G.P.F.) papers relating to respondent No.1 were issued by respondent No.2 on 12.3.2004 for withdrawal thereof, to the Principal, Guru Gobind Singh Ji Senior Secondary School, Bhagani, and its copy was endorsed to respondent No.1 who received the same in third week of March, 2004.
Thereafter, he approached the Principal of the School for payment alongwith the copy received by him.
However, Principal refused withdrawal of G.P.F. on the ground that intimation for payment had not been received from respondent No.2.
3 Record also reveals that finally the payment was made in June, 2004 after about 3 months.
4 In this background complaint was filed by respondent No.1 alleging that for no fault of his, he has been deprived of the interest on the sum of Rs.11,23,882/- between the period authority issued by respondent No.2 for release of the G.P.F. till it was actually released in the month of June, 2004. He thus claimed Rs.33,814/- on account of loss of interest alongwith interest @ 12% per annum though this claim was contested by respondent No.1. However, record and other documents placed by the parties on file reveal that it is admitted case of the appellant that the letter in question addressed to the Principal of the School was infact delivered to the Principal, Sri Guru Gobind Singh Government College, Paonta Sahib, instead of Principal of the School where respondent No.1 was employed. Therefore, this is a clear cut case of gross negligence on the part of the staff of the appellant. Finally District Forum below ordered payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Hence this appeal.
5 Mr. Arora on behalf of the appellant submitted that despite above wrong delivery of the registered letter in question sent by respondent No.2 to the Principal of the School for release of the G.P.F., his client has immunity under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. As such, this appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order and consequently dismissing the complaint.
Another ground urged by Mr. Arora was that the School has not been added as a party who was infact to release the G.P.F. The complaint was bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e. the School to whom authority for release of the GPF by respondent No.2 had been given and also the Principal of the College to whom it was infact delivered.
6 All these pleas were contested by Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. Per him, for no fault of his, respondent No.1 was deprived of interest on the amount of the G.P.F. Had it been released immediately on receipt of information from respondent No.2 by the Principal of the School, he would have kept the money in some Government or other security which would have earned substantial interest to him.
Further according to him, a retiree has to plan out on the basis of his retiral benefits for his future, whereas in the instant case his client was deprived and according to him, no benefit can be derived by the appellant under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, supra.
7 So far respondent No.2 is concerned, its learned Counsel stated at the bar that said respondent is not at all at fault. It even issued duplicate letter and further made enquiries from the postal authorities to ascertain the cause of delay when it transpired that instead of School to whom the registered letter should have been delivered, the same was delivered to the College at Paonta Sahib.
He thus prayed for dismissing the appeal with costs.
8 We shall first deal with the plea of non joinder of necessary parties i.e. the School to whom the letter in question was to be delivered and the College to whom it was actually but wrongly delivered by the appellant. Situation would have been different, according to us, in case after receipt of letter School had declined the release of G.P.F. We are further of the view that unless there was proper and legal authority issued in its favour by respondent No.2, it was perfectly justified in withholding the release of the amount in question. As such in the circumstances of this case, School was neither necessary nor proper party. Suffice it to say in this behalf that it is not the case of the appellant that after receipt of the authority delay was caused by the School. So far College to whom the authority was wrongfully delivered as was revealed on the enquiries made by respondent No.2, how the said College to whom letter was wrongly delivered is to be arrayed as party and what relief, if any, could be asked by the appellant against it, the learned Counsel for the appellant was not in a position to point out anything. Therefore, in our opinion, College is not even a proper party what to talk of its being a necessary party.
9 Now coming to the shelter being taken under Section 6 of the Act, supra, by the appellant. We are of the view that this is an archaic law enacted by the Britishers with a view to ensure that because of their acts of misfeasance and malfeasance like delay, non-delivery etc., they are not held responsible. In our opinion, all laws are and have to be subordinate to the Constitution of India which was promulgated in the year 1950. When the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, are examined on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution, in the peculiar facts of this case, we have no doubt in coming to the conclusion that this provision is being used, abused as well as mis-used by the appellant in this case.
Protection, if any, under Section 6 and for that matter under all other laws would be attracted to reasonable, fair, bonafide and genuine acts of the litigant like appellant and its subordinate staff. But it cannot be allowed to be invoked in cases of gross highhandedness as is the situation in this case.
10. Faced with this situation, Mr.Arora submitted that so far Section 6 is on the statute book, his clients are entitled to seek protection thereunder. At the risk of repetition, we may observe that as per its own showing on the enquiry to ascertain where the letter has gone made by respondent No.2, it was then revealed by the appellant that instead of its being delivered to the addressee, the same has been delivered to the College at Paonta Sahib instead of School at Bhagani.
Once these facts are admitted, in our opinion, Section 6 does not come to the rescue of the appellant nor any protection can be sought thereunder as was forcefully urged by Mr. Arora.
11 No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with costs fixed at Rs.4,000/-.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has undertaken to collect certified copy of this order free of cost as per Rules from the Reader of this Court. Office shall also send certified copies to the respondents.
Nahan, July 18, 2008.
(
Justice Arun Kumar Goel )(Retd.)
President
(Saroj Sharma )
/BS/ Member