Haryana

StateCommission

A/113/2016

INDIAN POSTAL DEPATT. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.SEEMA RATHI - Opp.Party(s)

G.C.BABBAR

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             

                                                         First Appeal No.113 of 2016

Date of Institution:-05.02.2016

                                                           Date of Decision: 22.08.2016

 

Manager, Indian Post, Branch Medical College, Rohtak, Senior Postmaster, Main Post Office, Rohtak, Superintendent Post Office, Ambala.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Doctor Seema Rathi D/o Sh.Ram Rattan Rathi, # 1350/30, Shri Nagar Colony, Rohtak.

                                                …..Respondent

 

CORAM:                    Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                                          

Present:                     Shri  G.C.Babbar, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                                    None for the respondent.

 

                                                               O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Manager, Indian Post, Branch Medical College, Rohtak – OP-1 is in appeal against the Order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Doctor Seema Rathi -  Complainant has been disposed of with the direction to the OPs to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,000/-. on account of mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2. In brief, the complainant had applied for the post of Junior Resident doctor in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for which the last date of acceptance of the application Form was 10.07.2015. He, therefore, sent the application form on 04.07.2015 through speed post as there was sufficient time to reach the destination. The OP had not sent the form of the complainant in time and had returned the envelop to the complainant on 17.07.2015 and the reason written on the envelop was ‘refused to take-13 July 15”. As the postal envelop did not reach in time and was received at the destination only on 13.07.2015 i.e. after the lapse of last date of 10.07.2015, the same was not accepted by the hospital administration and was returned with the endorsement - refused. It is averred that had the form been sent by the OPs in time, she should have been selected for the post and has been availing the salary of Rs.70,000/- per month. The act of the OPs was, therefore, illegal and amounted to deficiency in service. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum praying that OP be directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- on account of financial loss for the period of 6 months and Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
3. In reply, the OPs admitted that the complainant got booked a speed post article on 04.07.2015 from Medical College, Rohtak and was dispatched to NSH Rohtak on the same day. The article was duly entered at 11/12 and the NSH Rohtak dispatched the same to Rohtak RMS on 04.07.2015, which was dispatched to Rohtak RMS duly entered at Sr. No.5/105 of mail list dated 04.07.2015 to further dispatch to the delivery post office. But further track of the article could not be located. Thus, there was no willful deficiency on the part of the OPs and admissible compensation as per departmental rules i.e. Rs.80/- has been sanctioned.  The plea of the OPs was however, rejected and the learned District Forum disposed of the complaint on 06.01.2016 by awarding Rs.10,000/-  as compensation.
4. Against the impugned order, the OP-1/appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. They have placed firm reliance on the statutory provisions of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 and Rules 66-B framed there under. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. In fact, the law relating to dispatch of articles through the agency of post offices, there late delivery and loss in transit etc. is more than 100 years old. The numerous cases have been dealt under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e. last 30 years. Consistent view of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission and the State Commissions in the country had been to award on nominal compensation as permissible under the Post Office Act and Rules made there under, and not as claimed by the Consumers in their claim petitions. One such case decided by the Hon’ble National Commission is Union of India and others versus M.L. Bora, 2011 CTJ 27 (CP) (NCDRC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has observed as under:-

                        “7.        Section 6 is in two parts. The first part deals with the liability of government and the second part deals with the individual liability of the postal employee. The first part of Section 6 absolves the Government of any liability by reason of loss, mis delivery of delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms undertaken by the Central Government as provided by the statue. Second part provides that no office of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default”.  Since, in the instant case, the complaint has been made against the Postal Authorities in general and there is no allegation of any fraud or willful act or default on the part of the any one of the respondents, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

5.         In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble National Commission, the appeal of the Postal Authorities deserves to be allowed and the complaint is here by disposed of with a direction to the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.500/- in lumpsum compensation in addition to Rs.80/- as sanctioned by the OP.  

6.         The statutory amount of Rs.5000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

August 22nd, 2016                    Urvashi Agnihotri                                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                     Member                                                Judicial Member                                                Addl. Bench                                          Addl.Bench

S.K.