Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Post And Telegraph Department, ... vs A. Sarada on 19 October, 2001

The Postmaster General, vs K.Christopher, on 31 May, 2011

6. The main contention that is raised by the representative of the appellant is that the Post offices is exempted from the responsibility in case of loss, mis-delivery etc; as per clause 84 of the Post Office Act and in the instant case also compensation shall be double the charges paid by the complainant.  He has also relied on the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in Post & Telegraph Department, Trivandrum V.  A Sarada  (AIR 2002 Kerala 78) wherein it is held that the Government is liable to compensate for the loss sustained by a party only if there is willful default or negligence on the part of the employees concerned. He has also submitted before us that  in the instant case, there is no allegation by the complainant that it was a willful act on the part of a particular employee which resulted in the loss of the articles entrusted to the Department.  He has also submitted before us that the order of the Forum below  is liable to be set aside.  It is his further case that Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act is applicable in the  instant case also.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jayasudha P.V. vs Postmaster General, on 27 January, 2011

7.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellant in Appeal 512/2010 who is also the respondent in Appeal 287/2010 argued for the position that the compensation ordered by the Forum below is very much on the lower side as the complainant has lost her valuable certificates in original and that she had lost a valuable year of her educational career.  He has stressed the point that the above said articles were irrecoverably lost and though the opposite parties informed that an enquiry was conducted the enquiry report was not produced before the Forum below or before this Commission.  It is also his case that even after returning the filled in format to the opposite parties, the opposite parties failed to pay the compensation and the above facts and circumstances would indicate that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- prayed for by the complainant ought to have been ordered by the Forum below.  He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Post and Telegraph Department Vs Sarada [2001 (3) KLT 809] and argued before us that the exemption granted u/s  6 of the Post Office Act cannot be made applicable in the instant case as the immunity to the postal authorities and to Union of India from liabilities for the loss of any postal article in the course of transmission by post is limited to loss to government and not loss to the owner of postal article.  He canvassed for the position that the amount ordered by the Forum below is very much on the lower side and same is to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- itself and the opposite parties be directed to pay the said sum with interest and costs.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Postmaster General, vs Jayasudha, on 27 January, 2011

7.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellant in Appeal 512/2010 who is also the respondent in Appeal 287/2010 argued for the position that the compensation ordered by the Forum below is very much on the lower side as the complainant has lost her valuable certificates in original and that she had lost a valuable year of her educational career.  He has stressed the point that the above said articles were irrecoverably lost and though the opposite parties informed that an enquiry was conducted the enquiry report was not produced before the Forum below or before this Commission.  It is also his case that even after returning the filled in format to the opposite parties, the opposite parties failed to pay the compensation and the above facts and circumstances would indicate that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- prayed for by the complainant ought to have been ordered by the Forum below.  He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Post and Telegraph Department Vs Sarada [2001 (3) KLT 809] and argued before us that the exemption granted u/s  6 of the Post Office Act cannot be made applicable in the instant case as the immunity to the postal authorities and to Union of India from liabilities for the loss of any postal article in the course of transmission by post is limited to loss to government and not loss to the owner of postal article.  He canvassed for the position that the amount ordered by the Forum below is very much on the lower side and same is to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- itself and the opposite parties be directed to pay the said sum with interest and costs.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Superintendent Post Offices vs Ashok Kumar Garg on 22 November, 2012

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.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Ltd; vs T.Vijayan, on 21 July, 2011

6. The main contention that is raised by the representative of the appellant is that the Post offices is exempted from the responsibility in case of loss, mis-delivery etc; as per clause 84 of the Post Office Act and in the instant case also compensation shall be double the charges paid by the complainant.  He has also relied on the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in Post & Telegraph Department, Trivandrum V.  A Sarada  (AIR 2002 Kerala 78) wherein it is held that the Government is liable to compensate for the loss sustained by a party only if there is willful default or negligence on the part of the employees concerned. He has also submitted before us that  in the instant case, there is no allegation by the complainant that it was a willful act on the part of a particular employee which resulted in the loss of the articles entrusted to the Department.  He has also submitted before us that the order of the Forum below  is liable to be set aside.  It is his further case that Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act is applicable in the  instant case also.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1