KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 258/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 05.01.2010 PRESENT: SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The Postal Superintendent, : APPELLANT Ottappalam. (By Adv.Sri.M.P.Sasidharan Nair) Vs. Balan @ Balasubramanian, S/o.M.Manikyamuthali, : RESPONDENT Mallisseriparambu, Shoranur.P.O. Palakkad. (By.Adv.Sri.B.Vijayakumar) JUDGMENT SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 09.04.07 in C.C.88/2006 the CDRF, Palakkad has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7,320/- with compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. The complainant has approached the Forum alleging that a parcel containing a saree sent by him to Chennai was lost in transit and that he suffered a loss of Rs.7,320/- being the price of the saree. It is the further case of the complainant that though he had requested the opposite party to trace out the same, no effective steps were taken in spite of the registered notice on 26.05.06. The complaint was filed praying for direction to the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party filed version stating that the complaint was bad for no joinder of necessary parties as the Union of India ought to have to be in the party array. But it was admitted that the complainant had booked one registered parcel on 02.03.06 to be sent to Smt.Saraswathi Sankar, Annai Illam, Maddox Street, Chennai and that the parcel could not be delivered to the addressee. The opposite party further submitted that on receiving complaint from the complainant the same was enquired into which revealed that the parcel in question was lost in transit from Cehnnai and the same was communicated to the complainant. Further it was also submitted that there was no willful default or any negligent act on the part of the opposite party and as per Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum. It is also the case of the opposite party that the complainant has not raised any allegations against any specific official or has alleged any fraudulent or willful act on the opposite party. Raising the above contentions the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The evidence consists of the documents produced from both sides as Ext.A1 to A4 on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 and B2 on the side of opposite party. The Forum below on an appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case passed the impugned order with the directions aforesaid. Heard both sides. The representative of the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is perse illegal and unsustainable on the ground that there was no willful or fraudulent act on the part of the opposite party causing loss to the parcel entrusted by the complainant to the opposite party. He has also submitted before us that on an enquiry it was revealed that the parcel in question was lost at the Cehnnai sorting station which is evident from Ext.B1. He has also relied on the decision of this commission in appeal 400/2002 where it was held that Sec.6 of the post office act gives immunity to the officers of the post office unless it is established that the said loss, mis deliverey or damage is caused due to the fraudulent or willful act or default of the concerned postal employee. It is his very case that in the present case the complainant has not pleaded and proved such fraudulent and willful act or default on the part of the opposite party. He has also invited our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Union of India others Vs.Achintam Kilikdar (IV 2009 CPJ 97 NC) where the above said position is being upheld. Thus he advanced the contention that the Forum has gone wrong in directing the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.7,320 with compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and submitted before us that the Forum below has appreciated all the facts and circumstance of the case in its correct perspective and has passed the order which is liable to be upheld. He has argued before us that the opposite party is not expected to make loss to the poor and innocent senders of articles and that it is incumbent upon the opposite party to effect delivery of the articles entrusted to them to the addresses safely and expeditiously. He invited our attention to the fact that the Post Office Act 1898 was enacted before independence of India and that under the changed circumstances especially in the wake of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with subsequent amendments the protection of Sec.6 is to be ignored and officers should be punished with liability for adequate compensation to the senders in case of loss of article in transit. He submitted before us that the order of the Forum below is well conceived and in that circumstance the appeal is to be dismissed with cost. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant had sent a parcel and the same was lost in transit. The opposite party would argued that they are protected under Sec.6 unless there is an allegation of fraud willful act or default against an officer of the post office. The representative has argued that there is no such case for the complainant in the instant case. He has also argued that an enquiry was conducted which revealed that the parcel was lost from Chennai sorting station. In the said circumstances we find that the opposite party has no case that the article was not entrusted to them or that the article was delivered to the addressee. What the opposite party/ appellant would contend is only that they have the cover of Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act . It is true that we have also taken a view in appeal 400/02 that the opposite party appellant cannot be mulcted with liability unless there is an allegation of fraud or willful Act on the part of any official of the opposite party. However in the instant case we find that though the appellant would say that they had conducted an enquiry nothing is forthcoming to show that the opposite party/appellant had taken effective action in finding out the parcel that was sent by the respondent/ complainant. We also cast our concern over the increasing numbers of cases with regard to the loss of articles sent by people through the post offices. The post offices are expected to be the media for effective communication and transmission of articles for the people of India. The employees shall ensure the prompt delivery of the articles entrusted to them. It is also to be noted that consideration is received by the postal department and it is not to lose articles under the cover of Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Achintam Kilikdar (Supra) has awarded Rs.1,000/- towards the limited liability of the post offices though they have set aside the order of the Forum below. We find that the opposite party/appellant has committed deficiency service in not delivering the article to the addressee and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charansignh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others (2000 Supreme CTJ 721 CP) some compensation has to be paid to the complainant by the opposite party/appellant with a view to improve the quality of their service and we find that the compensation of Rs.1,000/- with cost of Rs.500 awarded by the Forum below are to be sustained. However the direction to pay the cost of the saree amounting to Rs.7,320/- is set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above. Thereby the appellant/opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.1,000 as compensation and cost of Rs.500/- within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. In the nature and circumstance of the present appeal there is no order as to cost. | 
