BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No.157/2008 Dated: 30..09..2009 Complainant:
Sreeja. S.S., Sujas, Near CSI Hospital, Karakkonam, Karakkonam-P.O., Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. N.T. Gopalan)
Opposite parties:
Union of India, represented by the Chief Post Master General Kerala, P.M.G Office, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. Superintendent of Post Offices, South Zone, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. Post Master, Karakkonam, Karakkonam-P.O., Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 07..08..2009, the Forum on 30..09..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are the following: The complainant had registered her name in the employment exchange and as per the list given by the Executive Employment Officer, a memo was sent to the complainant for interview for the post of Asst. Town Planner from the Principal Town Planning Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, that as per the said memo the complainant was directed to appear at 11 A.M on 26/2/2008 for an interview with all relevant records, that the said memo is seen forwarded to the complainant on 16/2/2008. Normally the said memo ought to have reached the complainant either on 17th or 18/2/2008, but really the intimation was given by the postal authorities only on 26/2/2008 at 3 P.M. The delay in delivering the memo was caused due to the dereliction and sheer indifference of the postal authorities concerned which resulted in missing the golden opportunity in getting a job to the complainant for which the postal authorities are liable to compensate the complainant for the monetary loss, mental agony and sufferings. Hence this complaint.
2.The 2nd opposite party has filed version for and on behalf of all the opposite parties contending as follows: From the photocopy of the wrapper attached to notice and copy of letter No.A3-1836/06 dated 11/2/2008 issued from the Office of the Chief Town Planner, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram, it is understood that a communication by post was sent by the Office of the Chief Town planner, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram, to the complainant. However, the Post Office is not aware of the contents of the envelope and as no records relating to receipt and delivery of ordinary mails are maintained by the Post Office it is not possible to confirm the date on which the said letter was posted and the date on which it was delivered to the complainant. There is no allegation that there was any fraudulent act of any particular officer of the Post Office and it is not alleged in the complaint nor proved that there was any willful act or default of any particular officer of the Postal Department, that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, 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 in so far 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, misdelivery delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. There was no record available with the Office of the Chief Town Planner, Palayam as to when the said letter was actually posted at the Post office. As no records pertaining to delivery of ordinary letters are maintained at any point, it is not possible to accept the version of the complainant that she had received the said article only at 3 P.M on 26/2/2008. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has been examined as PW1 marked Exts.P1 to P3 and one witness has also been examined, as PW2 and marked Ext.X1. Opposite parties have no evidence.
4. From the contentions raised, following issues arise for consideration:
Whether the opposite parties can claim immunity from liability under Sec. 6 & 48 of the Indian Post Office Act? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
5. Point No.(i) : In the instant case, the complainant who had registered her name in the employment exchange had received a letter dated 11/2/2008 to appear for an interview on 26/2/2008 and the complainant further alleges that the said letter was received by her only on 26/2/2008 at 3 P.M, therefore she could not attend the interview. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the postal authorities this complaint has been filed. The opposite parties in their version have taken the defence that the opposite parties had statutory protection under Sec 6 of the Post Office Act. The opposite parties further contend that there is neither any case for the complainant that there was any fraudulent act on the part of any particular officer of the Post Office in the alleged delay in delivery of the article nor has there been any material evidence to prove any willful act or default against any particular officer of the Postal Department and it is settled position of law that for claiming compensation it is to be pleaded and proved that any such loss, misdelivery, damage was caused by willful default or fraudulent act of any particular officer of the Post Office. 6. The transaction involved in this case is an ordinary postal transaction and it is an ordinary despatch. In such a circumstance the Postal Department is performing statutory service and there is no contractual liability. Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as follows: "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 in so far 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". Accordingly, the burden was on the complainant to prove that the delay in the delivery of the postal article was on account of the fraudulent or willful act or default. There is no specific allegation in the complaint that particular employee of post office acted willfully negligently or fraudulently. It is a well settled position by a long line of decisions that Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act gives immunity to the Government and its employees except in the cases of willful negligence, fraud or default.
7. On the basis of the evidence available on record, this Forum observe that even if the opposite parties were negligent in not delivering the letter in time, they are protected under Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act as the complainant has failed to furnish any evidence against the opposite partis nor has pleaded or proved any fraudulent or willful act or default on the part of the opposite parties or any of the employees of the Postal Department.
8. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to establish that the postal article was delivered late fraudulently with malafide intention on the part of the Postal Department and in such a circumstance in view of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, no liability could be imposed on the opposite parties. 9. In view of the above, other points require no consideration. In the result complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of September, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.
C.C.No.157/2008 APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : Sreeja.S.S PW2 : Rajeswari II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Original letter No.A3/1836/06 dated 11/02/2008 issued by Chief Town Planner, Chief Town Planning Office, Tvpm. P2 : Postal cover addressed to the complainant P3 : Copy of advocate notice dated 29/2/2008 issued to the opposite party.
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Photocopy of Despatch-cum-stamp Account Register dated 18/2/2008.
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No.157/2008 Dated: 30..09..2009 Complainant:
Sreeja. S.S., Sujas, Near CSI Hospital, Karakkonam, Karakkonam-P.O., Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. N.T. Gopalan)
Opposite parties:
Union of India, represented by the Chief Post Master General Kerala, P.M.G Office, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. Superintendent of Post Offices, South Zone, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. Post Master, Karakkonam, Karakkonam-P.O., Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 07..08..2009, the Forum on 30..09..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are the following: The complainant had registered her name in the employment exchange and as per the list given by the Executive Employment Officer, a memo was sent to the complainant for interview for the post of Asst. Town Planner from the Principal Town Planning Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, that as per the said memo the complainant was directed to appear at 11 A.M on 26/2/2008 for an interview with all relevant records, that the said memo is seen forwarded to the complainant on 16/2/2008. Normally the said memo ought to have reached the complainant either on 17th or 18/2/2008, but really the intimation was given by the postal authorities only on 26/2/2008 at 3 P.M. The delay in delivering the memo was caused due to the dereliction and sheer indifference of the postal authorities concerned which resulted in missing the golden opportunity in getting a job to the complainant for which the postal authorities are liable to compensate the complainant for the monetary loss, mental agony and sufferings. Hence this complaint.
2.The 2nd opposite party has filed version for and on behalf of all the opposite parties contending as follows: From the photocopy of the wrapper attached to notice and copy of letter No.A3-1836/06 dated 11/2/2008 issued from the Office of the Chief Town Planner, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram, it is understood that a communication by post was sent by the Office of the Chief Town planner, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram, to the complainant. However, the Post Office is not aware of the contents of the envelope and as no records relating to receipt and delivery of ordinary mails are maintained by the Post Office it is not possible to confirm the date on which the said letter was posted and the date on which it was delivered to the complainant. There is no allegation that there was any fraudulent act of any particular officer of the Post Office and it is not alleged in the complaint nor proved that there was any willful act or default of any particular officer of the Postal Department, that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, 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 in so far 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, misdelivery delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. There was no record available with the Office of the Chief Town Planner, Palayam as to when the said letter was actually posted at the Post office. As no records pertaining to delivery of ordinary letters are maintained at any point, it is not possible to accept the version of the complainant that she had received the said article only at 3 P.M on 26/2/2008. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has been examined as PW1 marked Exts.P1 to P3 and one witness has also been examined, as PW2 and marked Ext.X1. Opposite parties have no evidence.
4. From the contentions raised, following issues arise for consideration:
Whether the opposite parties can claim immunity from liability under Sec. 6 & 48 of the Indian Post Office Act? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
5. Point No.(i) : In the instant case, the complainant who had registered her name in the employment exchange had received a letter dated 11/2/2008 to appear for an interview on 26/2/2008 and the complainant further alleges that the said letter was received by her only on 26/2/2008 at 3 P.M, therefore she could not attend the interview. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the postal authorities this complaint has been filed. The opposite parties in their version have taken the defence that the opposite parties had statutory protection under Sec 6 of the Post Office Act. The opposite parties further contend that there is neither any case for the complainant that there was any fraudulent act on the part of any particular officer of the Post Office in the alleged delay in delivery of the article nor has there been any material evidence to prove any willful act or default against any particular officer of the Postal Department and it is settled position of law that for claiming compensation it is to be pleaded and proved that any such loss, misdelivery, damage was caused by willful default or fraudulent act of any particular officer of the Post Office. 6. The transaction involved in this case is an ordinary postal transaction and it is an ordinary despatch. In such a circumstance the Postal Department is performing statutory service and there is no contractual liability. Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as follows: "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 in so far 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". Accordingly, the burden was on the complainant to prove that the delay in the delivery of the postal article was on account of the fraudulent or willful act or default. There is no specific allegation in the complaint that particular employee of post office acted willfully negligently or fraudulently. It is a well settled position by a long line of decisions that Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act gives immunity to the Government and its employees except in the cases of willful negligence, fraud or default.
7. On the basis of the evidence available on record, this Forum observe that even if the opposite parties were negligent in not delivering the letter in time, they are protected under Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act as the complainant has failed to furnish any evidence against the opposite partis nor has pleaded or proved any fraudulent or willful act or default on the part of the opposite parties or any of the employees of the Postal Department.
8. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to establish that the postal article was delivered late fraudulently with malafide intention on the part of the Postal Department and in such a circumstance in view of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, no liability could be imposed on the opposite parties. 9. In view of the above, other points require no consideration. In the result complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of September, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.
C.C.No.157/2008 APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : Sreeja.S.S PW2 : Rajeswari II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Original letter No.A3/1836/06 dated 11/02/2008 issued by Chief Town Planner, Chief Town Planning Office, Tvpm. P2 : Postal cover addressed to the complainant P3 : Copy of advocate notice dated 29/2/2008 issued to the opposite party.
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Photocopy of Despatch-cum-stamp Account Register dated 18/2/2008.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
