RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.837 of 2005

1- Union of India through Secretary,

     Postal Department, New Delhi though

     Supdt. of Post Office, Deoria.

2- Dy. Record Officers/R.M.S.,

    Deoria.                                                      ….Appellants.

Versus

Chand Mohan Gupta, Major,

S/o Sri Kanahiya Lal Gupta,

Auto Center, Ram Janki Mandir, Gorakhpur

Raod, Deoria.                                              …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

Dr. Vishal Chaudhery for the appellants.

None for the respondent.      

Date  21.1.2016

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.8.2004, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Deoria in complaint case No.91 of 2002, the appellants Union of India through the Secretary, Postal Department, New Delhi and another have preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellants will suffer irreparable financial loss.

(2)

          From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Sri Chand Mohan Gupta was the proprietor of M/s Auto Center, Deoria. He sent a Registered AD letter on 31.1.2002 to M/s Welcome Automobiles, Delhi which allegedly contained some valuable documents (nature not disclosed) and a Bank Draft of Rs.5,000.00 bearing no.082437 dated 31.1.2002. It has been alleged in the complaint that the Registered Letter did not reach its destination. Feeling aggrieved by this deficiency in service, complaint case no.91 of 2002 was filed for redressal of his grievances.

The appellants took the plea that the complaint was filed without any cause of action as there was no complaint from the addressee. It was further submitted that valuable documents and drafts are not permitted to be enclosed inside a registered post and, therefore, the postal authorities can not be held liable for alleged loss of the same. It has further been submitted that no allegation has been made against any official or officer of the Postal Department and, therefore, the complaint was barred under Section '6' of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.

However, the Forum below, after hearing the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant Post Office & another to pay the amount mentioned in the Bank Draft i.e. Rs.5,000.00 to the respondent/complainant. It also directed the appellants to pay a further sum of Rs.2,000.00 to the respondent/complainant as compensation. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3)

          We have gone through the evidence on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of sufficient notice. Since the appeal was pending for about 10 years for disposal, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Act 68 of 1986, we preferred to decide the appeal exparte on the basis of evidence available on record and law.

          From perusal of the records, it transpires that the complaint case was filed with an allegation that the Registered Letter, sent by the respondent/complainant failed to reach its destination. The Registered Letter contained some valuable documents and a draft of Rs.5,000.00. The respondent/complainant has not given details of the valuable documents, therefore, it is not possible for us to discuss anything on the subject. In para '6' of the complaint, he has given the Draft no.082437 dated 31.1.2002 but there is no Bank Report as to whether the draft had been encashed or not. There is no evidence either as to whether another Bank Draft was subsequently obtained or not after getting the Bank Draft no.082437 cancelled on ground of loss in transit. In the backdrop of the same, we perused the law on the subject. Section '6' of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 provides that:

“Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage - The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery 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

(4)

undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

In the instant matter, there is no allegation against any officer or official of the appellant Postal Department relating to fraud or willful act or default. Consequently, the complaint was barred under Section '6' of the Indian Post Office Act (Act no.6 of 1898).

Furthermore, Rule 83  of the Indian Post Offices Rules, 1933 provides that:

"letters or parcels containing coin, bullion, currency notes, etc. are to be sent by post only in insured covers."

Rule 83-A further provides that:

 "when a letter or parcel contains Government currency notes, bank notes, gold coins etc. sender has to declare on the article the value of the contents and the time dispatch."

In the instant matter, the respondent/complainant did not comply with the provisions contained under Rule 83 and 83-A of the Indian Post Offices Rules, 1933. Thus, he certainly committed a gross remiss, in view of the rulings laid down in Union of India & Ors. vs. Achintam Kilikdar, 2009(3) CPC 713 (NC) at para 8 and thereby, invited misfortune for himself.

          It may also be observed here that in the instant matter, no allegation of fraudulent, wilful act or default on the part of the appellants Post Offices has been alleged.

(5)

Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898 provides that "The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery 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 hereinafter provided and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

It has been held in The Post Master, Imphal & Ors. vs. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, 2000(I) CPR 34 (NC) that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898 no relief could be granted to the sender for non-delivery of registered postal packets unless allegation of fraud, wilful act or default is alleged. Similar view was given in Ravinder Nath Upadhya vs. Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices & Anr., I(2014) CPJ 97 (NC), Post Master, Sub Post Office & Ors. vs. Ajay Goyal, IV(2013) CPJ 565 (NC) and Union of India & Ors. vs. M.L. Bora, 2011 (2) CPC 179 (NC). In the instant matter, the Forum below directed the appellants to pay the amount of draft i.e. Rs.5,000.00 to the respondent. It also directed the appellants to pay the respondent Rs.2,000.00 as compensation for non-delivery of the registered letter. It was argued on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that the law relating to non-delivery or mis-delivery of postal articles is well settled by a long chain of decisions of the Hon'ble English Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme

(6)

Court of India that Section 6 gives complete immunity to the Government and its employees except in cases specified therein. The Hon'ble National Commission in Dr. Jamini Devi's case (supra) was pleased to observe that "there exists no reason to depart from this well established principle". There is no doubt that an officer of the Post Office cannot escape liability over any loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to the postal article when such loss of mis-delivery is caused by him fraudulently or by a willful act or default. There is no allegation of any kind of fraud, willful act or default against any official or officer of the Post Office in the present case. Thus, in view of the provisions contained under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 read with Rule 83 and 83-A of the Indian Post Offices Rules, 1933, we are of the considered view that the respondent/complainant is not entitled for the relief granted to him by the Forum below. The judgment and order, being erroneous and against the provisions and principles of law, cannot be allowed to sustain. Consequently, it is liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 

ORDER

          The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 26.8.2004, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Deoria in complaint case No.91 of 2002 is set aside.  No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (Sanjai Kumar)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA II Court No.3