Punjab

StateCommission

FA/574/2013

Anita Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Department of Posts(India) - Opp.Party(s)

in person

29 Jan 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No. 574 of 2013

                                                           

                                    Date of institution: 17.5.2013   

                             Date of Decision: 29.1.2015

 

Anita Rani d/o Late Shri Raj Pal, H. No. 231, Satjot Nagar, Dugri, Dhandra Road, Ludhiana.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Department of Posts (India), O/o The Senior Post Master, Head Post Office, Ludhiana through Sr. Post Master.
2. The Chief Post Master, G.P.o. Lucknow – 226 001

…..Respondents/OPs

 

First Appeal against the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Mrs. Anita Rani, in person

          For the respondents        :         Sh. Iqbal Singh Khurmi, PRI (P)

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.812          dated 1.10.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter called ‘the Ops’) on the allegations that she sent a registered letter in the name of General Secretary, Lok Complaint Department, Uttar Pradesh, Secretariat, Lal Bahadur Shashtri Building, Lucknow (Lok Complaint Section-1) through respondent No. 1 on 14.6.2012 and paid Rs. 40/- against the weight of 75 gram against receipt No. RP-158834981 IN vide which she had sent necessary documents for necessary investigation to the Lokayukta, Lucknow. However, the said parcel was not delivered to the concerned party. The complainant approached respondent No. 1 on various times and submitted a written complaint also. However, respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 6.9.2012 sanctioned a sum of Rs. 100/- on the ground that the registered letter under reference was not traceable at their end. The respondents are negligent in rendering their services and respondents have indulged in mal-practice and a sum of Rs. 100/- was not sufficient compensation and a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- alongwith litigation expenses was asked for in this complaint for mis-placing the valuable documents.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply in which it was admitted that the complainant got one registered letter sent through them which was lost in transit and in view of Section 170 of Post Office Guide Part-I, the OP allowed Rs. 100/- as ex-gratia. No other compensation was admissible in the amount and the amount of ex-gratia has been recovered from the concerned employee. The list of articles cannot be deemed to be deficiency in services on their part. To prove that it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove that the article in question had been lost due to wilful act or fraud on the part of concerned officer/employee. A reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court AIR 1980 SC 431 “Union of India Vs. Mohammad Nazim” that the Government is not a common carrier and providing the services to the valuable consumers under the statute/Act under the concept of welfare state and there was no contractual liability. In establishing the post offices and running the postal service, the Central Government performs a governmental function and the Government does not engage in a commercial transaction with the sender of the article. Further Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898(in short the ‘Act’) provides the exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of the such article or contents  whereof to the Government unless the loss was due to wilful act or fraud on the part of the employees; the District Forum, Ludhiana did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, accordingly, it was submitted that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. CA-1, memo dt. 6.9.12 Ex. C-1, memo dt. 6.11.12 Ex. C-2, postal receipt Ex. C-3. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Mrs. Swaraj Kaur, Sr. Post Master Ex. RA, instructions regarding compensation Exs. R-1 & 2.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint on the allegations that the registered letter was got issued by the complainant from the OP, which was not delivered at the destination and for that ex-gratia of Rs. 100/- was granted to the complainant after imposing the penalty on the concerned employee. The Union of India was rendering the statutory services, no contractual liability. Moreover, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the loss was intentional on the part of the employees of the Ops.

7.                In the grounds of appeal, the complainant has stated that the learned District Forum has failed to properly appreciate the documents on the record Exs. C-1 & 2. The findings of the learned District Forum are against the record, liable to be set-aside.

8.                In case we go through the documents Exs. C-1 & 2, Ex. C-A-I is the affidavit of the complainant Anita Rani in which it has been stated that the contents of the complaint may be read as a part of this affidavit, therefore, the affidavit is as per the complaint. Alongwith that document Ex. C-1 has been filed. It has been mentioned that as per the information provided by Chief Post Master, Lucknow vide their letter No. CR/Misc./141001-01170 dated 6.9.2012, the registered letter under reference is not traceable at their end, therefore, ex-gratia of Rs. 100/- was granted and Ex. C-2 is the letter written by Sr. Postmaster, Head Post Office, Ludhiana to the complainant. Certainly, there is no dispute on the basis of pleadings  and evidence of the parties that registered letter under reference was not traceable at the destination, therefore, it was lost in transit. In case the registered letter is lost in transit then under Section 170 of the Post Office Guide, Part-1 provides that head of the Circle may grant to the sender or at his request the addressee solely as an act of grace and not in consequence of any legal liability compensation up to a limit of Rs. 50/- for the loss of any inland letter, packet or parcel, or its contents or for any damage caused to it in course of transmission. Section 6 of the Act further provides the exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of the articles or contents whereof to the Government and it further 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 in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government and that no officer shall incur any liability for any reason unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default, therefore, there is exemption for the liability to the officers of the Post Office. The complainant does not proves that the loss has been caused fraudulently or by wilful act. The complaint is silent on this aspect that the registered letter was lost fraudulently or by wilful act of the Employee of the respondents. There is a judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission 2011(2) CPC 179 passed in RP No. 2411 of 2006 “Union of India & Ors. Vs. M.L. Bora”, decided on 13.10.2010 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that the liability cannot be held unless there is specific allegation of any wilful act on the part of the official of the Post Office. Moreover, no detail has been given what was the contents of the documents, which were sent through registered post and whether those documents cannot be again made available to the complainant. In those circumstances, the compensation as demanded by the complainant cannot be awarded to the complainant. We are of the opinion that the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum are correct findings. We affirm the same.

9.                In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 23.1.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

January 29, 2015.                                                                                                                                                         (Vinod Kumar Gupta)

as                                                                                                                                                                                                      Member