Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

          Both parties are present through their Ld. Advocates. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with final order vide order no. 11 dt. 16.07.2019 allowing the CC/268/2018 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata Unit I on contest awarding compensation of Rs. 70/- against the OPs and directing them to pay the same within 30 days with default clause, the appellant preferred this appeal.

The main grievance of the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the forum below is not adequate in view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble NCDRC. So, the appellant preferred this appeal challenging the legality of the impugned order.

The moot question involved in this appeal whether there is any illegality in the impugned judgment.

Fact of the complainant’s case is in short like that on 21.05.2018 the department of Health and Family Welfare Government of West Bengal issued a notification inviting application from eligible candidates within 31.05.2018 for admission to GNM course for the session  of September 2018 the complainant applied for the post and she booked speed post for delivery in the GPO Kolkata having a specific consignment number. The complainant tracking the consignment record came to know that it did not reach the destination and it was sent to Pune, Maharashtra. The last date of applying of the course was 31.05.2018 the complainant subsequently received the same on 06.06.2018. On that score the complainant prayed for compensation for Rs. 5,00,000/- and 8,00,000/- totalling Rs. 13,00,000/- on account of course fees and harassment for mental agony.

The OPs being the present respondents contested the case before the Ld. Forum below. Accordingly to the answering respondents the article was booked on 28.05.2018 in Kolkata GPO and the same was despatched to National Sorting Hub Kolkata Airport on the same date. After despatch the speed post article had no scope to be intervened. The MNS machine wrongly read PIN No. 411/422 NS Pune so  the consignment was sent to NSH Pune and according to them no official of postal department could be held responsible for mistransmission of the said article.

The Ld. Forum below framed 3 points for consideration. (1) Whether the complainant booked an article from the OP no. 1? (2) Whether there was any deficiency on the part of the OPs? (3) Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for?

The Ld. Forum below answered all this points in affirmative and allowed the case.

The Ld. Advocate for the respondent submitted that no official of the postal department could not be  held responsible because the article was mis-sent because of erroneous reading by the machine.

It appears that  due to delayed delivery of the article the appellant lost his opportunity to join the course. Subsequently, she approached the school of nursing Rubi Hospital for joining a similar course. But course fees of the said course was around Rs. 8,00,000/-. It was not possible for the appellant to pay the said cost. It transpires from the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant that the appellant did not apply for the similar course before the Government Institution concerned on the following year.  So, she suffered from loss of one academic year and she opted for graduation in main stream.

The Ld. Advocate for the respondent submitted that compensation awarded by the forum below in accordance with section 6 of the Indian Post Act, 1898 and Post Office Rule 1993 and the amendment of the Statute Rule by Notification No. GSR 40 (E) dt. 21.01.1999 following condition after condition no. 5 of Rule 55 B was inserted “in case of any delay of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the department of post from time to time the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charge paid.

In the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double to the amount of composite speed post charges or Rs. 1000/- whichever is less.”

So, according to the Ld. Advocate for the respondent there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. He also stated that as per Post Office Rule annexed as annexure 1 within state the date of delivery is 1 to 4 days.

But the fact is that the matter was despatched to Chinsurah on 01.06.2018 and the same was not received by the addressee Nursing College. So it was returned and received by the complainant on 06.06.2018. the Ld. Advocate for the appellant referred a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development authority –vs- Balbir Singh reported in 2004 AIR Supreme Court 2141 wherein it has been decided that when the “it is necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”

Ld. Advocate for the appellant referred a decision in the case of Post Office Hisar –vs- Dilwant Singh reported in 2018 4 CPJ page 425  wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC observed that  “there is a concurrent finding in respect of the fact that the concerned Speed post was issued on 03.12.2012 and was received on 14.12.2012 and the same is admitted by the department. The normal delivery time is 3-4 days only and thus clearly the petitioner department was deficient in delivery of the Speed post as per the norms of the department. The Indian Post Office Act is of 1898 and lot of water has flown since then, the modes of communication have changed from post card, and envelopes to recorded delivery, registered post, Speed post, E-mails and other digital modes. Similarly, more and more laws are being enacted to infuse more element of accountability in the provision of public services”

Ld. Advocate for the appellant referred a decision of NCDRC in the case of Union of India –vs- Amal Chandra Hore reported in 2020 1 CPJ page 341. In the aforesaid Judgment the Hon’ble NCDRC upheld the judgment passed by this Commission directing the OPs of the said case to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- within 30 days from the date of this order. In the decision the Hon’ble NCDRC observed “In order to appreciate the rival stands, it would be necessary to analyse the scope of Section 6 of the said Act, which reads as follows:

“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 wilful act or default.”

The Section is in two parts. The first part provides for a complete immunity to the Government, unless some liability is undertaken by the government under the statute in express terms. Similar immunity is extended to the officers of the post office. The second part carves out an exception to the blanket immunity to its officers and provides that they can incur liability if it is shown that the loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, etc. had been caused fraudulently or by the wilful act or default of such an employee.” In the present case the complainant definitely suffered loss.

The fact of the case decided by this Commission in that case is more or less similar to the fact of the present case.

The discussion can be summed up in the following way, the appellant/complainant applied for an admission in a Government National Course but due to delayed delivery of her item she could not join the same. Although there is no individual liability on behalf of the postal authorities concerned but undoubtedly as a whole the Postal authority is liable for the same. It is also a fact she did not apply for the same government course on the following year before the aforesaid government institution and she changed her academic line and got herself admitted in a graduation course.

So, we are of the view the impugned order requires  to be modified and in addition to relief given by the Ld. Forum below a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- should have been awarded to the complainant.

Accordingly, the A/604/2019 is allowed on contest in part without costs in result the CC/268/2018 is allowed with compensation of Rs. 50,070/- payable by the respondent / OPs with litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- within 30 days from this order failing which, it shall accrue interest @ 8% p.a. from the said date till the date of payment of entire amount.

The impugned order is modified accordingly.

Let the copy of this order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit I for information and necessary action.

Joint Registrar of this Commission is requested to do the needful in this regard.