State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Post Master, vs Ravindra Shrirang Daware on 25 March, 2014
1 F.A. No. 634-09
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH
AT AURANGABAD
Date of filing: 05.01.2009
Date of Order: 25.03.2014
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 14 OF 2009
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 253 OF 2008
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: OSMANABAD.
1. The Post Master,
Post Office Yenegur,
Tq.Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Osmanabad Division, Osmanabad. ... Appellants
VERSUS
Ravindra Shrirang Daware
R/o. Dastapur, Tq. Lohara,
Dist. Osmanabad. ... Respondent
Coram : Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.
Present: Adv. Shri. Ruturaj Patil, for appellant.
Adv. Shri. Datta Madke for respondent.
- :: ORAL JUDGMENT:: -
(Delivered on 25th March, 2014) Per Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member
1. This appeal is filed by the original opponents who are the officers of the postal department against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2008 passed by District Forum, Osmanabad in consumer complaint No.253/2008. The respondent is the original complainant.
2. The factual aspect of this case in nutshell are that, the respondent who is a teacher sent DD amounting to Rs.1000/- bearing No.248199 to Yashwantrao 2 Chavan Open University, Nashik for taking admission to the course of Diploma in Education Management by registered post on 08.08.2005. However, the said article was lost during transmission and the same could not reach to the destination. Therefore the complainant could not get the admission for the said course due to which he was deprived from further promotion and increments.
Hence alleging deficiency in service against the appellants he had filed complaint before District Forum seeking directions against the appellants/opponent to pay him jointly and severally a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also Rs.2000/- as cost of the complaint along with the interest.
3. The appellants appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It was admitted by the appellants that the respondent had sent registered article bearing No.4032 dated 08.08.2005 as the said article was lost. It had however denied the claim of the complainant/respondent on the ground that as per Sec. 6 of the India Post Office Act, 1935 the Government and its officials were exempted from the liability for the loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article during the course of transmission except such loss, mis-delivery, delay etc as caused due to deliberate and willful act for default. It was further contended that appellants were not concerned with the DD which was sent through the said registered post. However as per the rules of the Postal Department the appellants were responsible to pay compensation of Rs.100/- and they were ready to pay compensation Rs.100/- to the complainant. On these grounds it was contended that the complaint being false and demanding excessive compensation without any legal basis be dismissed with cost.
4. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties has partly allowed the complaint and directed appellant/opponents to pay to the respondent/complainant a compensation of Rs.5000/- towards loss sustained by him and Rs.500/- more towards cost of the complaint. The District Forum while delivering the judgment has referred to the case laws in case of Post 3 F.A. No. 634-09 Master Vs. Dr. Sanjay Desai, 2008 CTJ 1000 (CP) by Rajasthan State Commission in which it is held by State Commission that Sec.6 of Post Office Act does not provide the blanket or total immunity and it does not empower the postal department and its officer liable for loss, mis-delivery etc. of the article., and further in case of Post Master General, Tamilnadu Vs. Calvin Jacob, 1994 1994 CTJ-676 (CP) and in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. Upvokta Surksha Parishad, 1997 (1) CPR II (NC) as referred by District Forum it is held by Hon'ble National Commission that the postal department and its officials do not enjoy the complete immunity for any action whatever or mis- delivery or damage to the postal article as per Sec.6 of the Post Offices Act.
5. It is on the basis of observation made by the State Commission Rajasthan and by Hon'ble National Commission in the cases referred above the District Forum has concluded that by missing the article which was sent by registered post by the respondent/complainant, the appellants have committed deficiency in service and accordingly passed the impugned judgment and order.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the present appeal is field by the appellants which came to be finally heard on 10.03.2014. Adv. Shri. Ruturaj Patil was present for the appellant, whereas Adv. Datta Madke was present for the respondent. Both the counsel have already submitted their written notes of arguments. We also heard the counsel for both sides finally and appeal was adjourned for judgment and order.
7. Adv. Shri. Ruturaj Patil for the appellant submitted that respondent should have dispatched the letter by insured post being valuable thing i.e. DD as required by rules 165 (2) and other relevant provisions of Post Office Rule. He further submitted that Sec. 6 of the Post Office Act clearly exempt the postal department and its officials from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay etc. to any postal article during the course of its transmission except in case of willful 4 default on the part of the Postal Department. However no such allegation regarding willful default or fraudulent act is made the particular staff of the said department by the respondent/complainant in his complaint. Therefore appellants were liable to pay compensation only Rs.100/- as per the Postal Rules. The District Forum without considering the legal provisions of the postal Act has erroneously passed the impugned judgment and order which needs to be quashed and set aside. In support of his aforesaid contention he has taken the support of the judgment dated 18th Sept.2002 in R.P. No.15/1997, 1006/2001 and 135/2002 which are in favour of the postal department. The appellants have also referred the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission dated 11 th Sept. 2013 passed in R.P.No.4569/2012 pertaining to Department of Post Office, Alwar, Rajsthan Vs. Dharamveer Harijan of Alwar, Rajasthan.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri. Madke, appearing for the respondent submitted that by acting negligently, the appellants have lost the article of complainant which has sent by him through registered post and therefore the District Forum has rightly considered this aspect and rightly passed the impugned judgment and order which needs to be confirmed. In support of his aforesaid contention he relied on the following case laws:
i. Head Post Master and Another, Vs. Neeraj Gupta, 2013 (2) CPR 631 (NC) ii. Sr. Supdt. Of Post Office, NIT, Faridabad and Anr, Vs. Shri. Mahaveer Prasad and Anr., decided on 04.07.2013.
iii. The Post Master G J U Post Office, Hissar and Ors, Vs. Guru Jambeshwar University, Hissar, 2013 (3) CPR 760 (NC) decided on 06.09.2013.
8. We have carefully gone through the papers including copy of complaint, written version filed by the appellants, extract of the Post Office Act regarding 5 F.A. No. 634-09 provisions of Sec. 6 of Post Office Act, impugned judgment, appeal memo, written notes of arguments along with citations etc. There are two major questions which are for our consideration:
1. Whether deficiency in service proved against the appellant ?
2. Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum requires our intervention ?
9. As regards the question No.1, it is an admitted fact that the appellants have lost the article of the respondent which was sent by registered post. It is contended by the complainant that by the said article of registered post he had sent DD of Rs.1000/- as admission fees to the course of Management Education, but since the said article was lost he could not get the admission for that year. Although as per the contention of the appellants that they are exempted from the liability by reason of loss, delay and damages to the postal article, as per Sec. 6 of the Post Offices Act and that in such cases appellants are liable to pay compensation of only Rs.100/- as per the Post Offices Rules. The question is therefore why the appellants had not paid the said amount to the respondent/complainant. It is only when the complaint was filed before the District Forum, the appellants have come forward with the plea that they are liable to pay compensation of only Rs.100/- and they are ready to pay. Hence by not paying the said amount of compensation to the complainant/respondent before filing of the complaint itself amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the appellants are liable to pay the compensation towards deficiency in service and the loss of the academic year of the complainant for which he could not take the admission to the diploma course in question.
10. Now the question is whether amount of compensation as awarded by the District Forum is just and proper. As contended by learned counsel Shri. Ruturaj Patil for the appellant as per Sec. 6 of the Post Offices Act, the Government as well as its officials are not liable to pay the compensation more than Rs.100/- for 6 the loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article unless such loss, mis- delivery etc. has been proved to be caused by the fraudulent or willful act of the officers of the postal department. It is not case of the respondent/complainant that his postal article was lost by the officers of the postal department by fraudulent or willful act. But since the appellants have failed to pay the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.100/- as per the postal Rules, they are liable to pay the compensation for their failure to pay the same. However considering the amount of compensation of Rs.100/- and the period of lapse from the date of loss of the said article, we are of the view to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.3000/- instead of Rs.5000/- as awarded by the District Consumer Forum.
11. In the result, we pass the following order by modifying the order of District Forum.
O R D E R
1. The appeal is partly allowed.
2. The clause No.1 of the impugned order is modified to the extent of directing the appellants jointly and severally to pay the compensation of Rs.3000/-
instead of Rs.5000/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3. The directions of the District Forum given as clause-2 of the said order for payment of Rs.500/- as cost of the complaint, within 30 days are confirmed.
(K. B. Gawali) (S.M. Shembole)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar
7 F.A. No. 634-09