Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/144/2013

DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA, CHIEF POST MASTER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK U SAMAT - Opp.Party(s)

A. ASHOK KAMAR

13 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :    HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI               PRESIDENT  

                    THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER                                                                                                

F.A.NO.144/2013

(Against the order in CC.No.386/2008, dated 15.10.2012 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

 

Department of Posts / India

Rep. by the Chief Post Master,

Anna Road Head Post Office,                                 Appellant /Opposite party

Chennai 600 002.

 

                              Vs

 

Mr.Ashok U Samat,

Partner of Samath Agencies,                                 Respondent /Complainant

No.95, Mount Road,

Chennai 600 002.

 

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 28.01.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:

Counsel for Appellant/ Opposite party     :   M/s.Ashok Kumar            

Counsel for Respondent/ Complainant     :   In person  

 

J.JAYARAM,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

1.       The appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in CC.No.386/2008, dated 15.10.2012 allowing the complaint.

2.       The case of the complainant is that he booked a tender document by speed post to the Airport Authorities of India, Goa on 3.6.2008.  The last date for submission of the tender document was 6.6.2008.  But the cover containing the tender document has been delivered to the consignee only on 7.6.2008 and so he could not participate in the tender which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party who had assured at the time of booking that the consignment would be delivered to the addressee on 5.6.2008 itself.

3.       According to the opposite party the article was booked with them for delivery to the addressee at Goa and normally it would be delivered in two days from the date of booking, but due to the change of monsoon weather, connection from Mumbai to Goa was not made in time by the Airport Authority and the unexpected delay is an Act of God and there is no deficiency of service on their part.

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on their part and awarded compensation.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party has preferred this appeal. 

6.       Admittedly a cover containing some document was booked by the complainant / respondent with the appellant / opposite party under speed post on 3.6.2008, but the cover was delivered to the addressee only on 7.6.2008 and it is seen that there is 4 days delay in delivering the cover.

7.       It is contended by the appellant / opposite party that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent / complainant and that the claim cannot be entertained in view of the Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act and Rule-66B.  Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act reads as follows:

          “Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage-The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as herein after provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

8.       The Hon’ble National Commission has held as follows :

“In the case of Union of India  and Ors. –vs- M.L.Bora – II (2011) CPJ 9  (NC)  in which it is held as under;-

          “The scope of Sec.6 was considered comprehensively by a 5 Members Bench of this Commission in the case of Post Master, Imphal & Ors –vs- Dr.Jamini Devi Sagolband, I(2000)CPJ 28(NC).”

          “Section 6 grants complete immunity to the Government liability for loss, mis-delivery or damage to postal articles.  In the second part of Section 6 it deals with individual liability of the postal employees, but states that no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or willful default.”

9.       It is pertinent to note that in the present complaint there is no allegation of fraud, willful act or willful default against the opposite party and in the absence of any such pleading no liability can be fastened on the opposite party since the opposite party is entitled to the immunity as contemplated under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act.

10.     Further as ruled by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of  “Union of India & Ors – vs- R.C. Puri”-II (2005) CPJ 49 (NC) In the event of delay in delivery of the postal article sent under Speed Post, the postal department is not liable to pay compensation.  It is held by the Hon’ble National Commission as follows:

          “In Exercise of power conferred by Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Central Government framed Indian Post Office Rules, 1933.  By amendment to these statutory Rules in 1986, Rule 66B was introduced w.e.f. 1.8.1986 which pertains to speed post.  Rules were further amended by notification GSR 40 (E) dated 21.1.1999 which inserted the following conditions after Condition No.(5) of Rule 66B.”

          “In case of any delay of domestic speed post parcels beyond the norms determined by the Department of posts from time-to-time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charge paid.”

          “In the event of loss of domestic speed post articles or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charged paid Rs.1000 whichever is less.”

11.     For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the complainant is not entitled to claim compensation from the opposite party.

12.     The District Forum erred allowing the complaint and in awarding compensation to the complainant and therefore the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.

13.               In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

                    The Registry is directed to refund the mandatory deposit to the opposite party duly discharged together with the accrued interest.

J.JAYARAM                                                                    R.REGUPATHI

(J)MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT