RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.1403 of 2009

1- Union of India through Secretary,

     (Department of Post), New Delhi.

2- Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

    Postal Division, Rae Bareli.                     ….Appellants.

Versus

Daya Nand Sharma s/o Late Sri Natthu Lal Sharma,

R/o 1964/9, Near Jawahar Bihar, Pani Ki Tanki,

Rae Bareli.                                                   …Respondent.

Present:-

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

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

Dr. U.V. Singh for the appellants.

Sri S.P. Pandey for the respondent.         

Date   21.7.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.7.2009, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Rae Bareli in complaint case No.50 of 2008, the appellants Union of India through the Secretary, (Department of Post), Govt. of India, 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 conjunctures 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 Daya Nand Sharma had sent a Registered AD letter addressed to Principal, BIMR College, Gwalior (M.P.) on 21.6.2007 from the Railway Mail Service, Speed Post Extension Centre, Rae Bareli vide receipt no.679 dated 21.8.2007. It has been alleged that he had kept a Bank Draft no.123870 dated 21.8.2007 of Rs.17,000.00 in favour of BIMR College of Life Sciences, Gwalior in the said Registered Letter towards payment of fees of her daughter Km. Prerna Shama who was pursuing studies in the aforesaid college. The Registered letter failed to reach its destination in time and, therefore, a complaint was lodged with the Post Offices on 10.9.2007 which was registered at sl.no.243200-02241 dated 13.9.2007 in its official Website. The respondent/ complainant again lodged complaint in this connection on 19.9.2007 and thereafter, on 27.9.2007. From perusal of the records, it further transpires that he obtained another Bank Draft no.213093 on 31.10.2007 in lieu of the alleged draft lost in transit. A certificate in this regard, has been issued by the Sr. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda on 23.2.2010 which is on record. Feeling aggrieved by this deficiency in service, complaint case no.50 of 2008 was filed before the Ld. DCDRF, Rae Bareli for redressal of his grievances.

          The appellants Post Offices took the plea that the Registered Post sent on 21.8.2007 was delivered to the addressee on 25.8.2007 and in support of its contention Post Office has annexed a certificate issued by the

(3)

Manager (Finance) of the College dated 12.8.2007. The said certificate is under his seal and signature. However, it may be observed here that the Principal of the College informed the Superintendent of the Post Offices, Rae Bareli on 11.10.2007 that the said Registered letter no.679 dated 21.8.2007 was not received by the College at any time.

          Heard both the parties at length and have gone through the records carefully. It has been alleged that the respondent Sri Daya Nanad Sharma had kept a Bank Draft for Rs.17,000.00 in the Registered letter which was alleged to have lost in transit. We are, therefore, first required to ascertain whether it was appropriate for the respondent/ complainant to keep uninsured valuable documents like Bank Draft in the Registered post or not ? 

          Rule 83  of the Indian Post Offices Rule, 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 Rule, 1933. Thus, he certainly committed a gross remiss on his part, 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.

(4)

          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. 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 awarded a sum of Rs.10,000.00 as compensation and Rs.1,000.00 as cost of litigation totalling to Rs.11,000.00 for non-delivery of the registered letter. It was argued on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the law relating to non-delivery or mis-delivery of postal articles is well settled by

(5)

a long line of decisions of the English Courts, the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts as well as the National Commission 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 and hold that there exists no reason to depart from this well established principle. On the other hand, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant that a contrary view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in Head Post Master, Head Post Office & Anr. vs. Neeraj Gupta, II(2013) CPJ 732 (NC). We have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It relates to delay in delivery of a Speed Post. The rules, as well as, terms and conditions of Speed Post Services are different from rules relating to Registered Post. Rule 66-B of the Indian Post Offices Rules, 1933 deals with the matter relating to Speed Post matters whereas, matters relating to Registered Post are covered under Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898 and, therefore, the ruling cited by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent does not appear to be applicable in the instant matter. 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 wilful act or default. There is no allegation of any kind of fraud, wilful act or default against any official or officer of the Post Office in the present case. Thus, in view of the provisions

(6)

contained under Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices 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, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 

ORDER

          The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 16.7.2009, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Rae Bareli in complaint case No.50 of 2008 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.4