BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONAT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1336/2006 against C.C. 235/2005, Dist. Forum,
West Godavari at Eluru
Between:
1. The Post Master
Head Post Office
Eluru
2. The Eluru Customer Care Centre
O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Eluru Division, Eluru. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
D. Gopi, S/o. Ramana
Age: 41 years,
Proprietor,
Durga Delux Seat Cover Works
Canal Road, Eluru
West Godavari Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar
Counsel for the Resp: Resp. Served
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party postal department against the order of the Dist. Forum, Eluru in directing it to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- together with costs of Rs. 500/- towards loss of a registered letter.
The case of the complainant in brief is that on 27.6.2002 he sent a registered letter with acknowledgement due from Head Post Office, Eluru enclosing a demand draft for Rs. 10,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, payable at New Delhi in favour of S. Ramlal to the addressee M/s. Vee Kay Auto Accessories, New Delhi. When the addressee did not receive, he addressed several letters for which the appellants except asking for some more information did not give any satisfactory reply. When he enquired, he found that the said demand draft was encashed by an unknown person. Non-service of registered letter to the addressee amounts to deficiency in service and therefore, he prayed that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- be paid besides Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
The appellants resisted the case. It alleged that it was not aware that a demand draft for Rs. 10,000/- was drawn in favour of S. Ramlal sent through registered post. If really the complainant could know that somebody had encashed the demand draft he would have reported to the police. After receipt of complaint, it asked the complainant to produce the original receipt under which cover was sent, however, the same was not received. In the absence of original R.L. receipt it would be difficult to make enquiries. The complaint was filed after a lapse of two years without sending original R.L. receipt. As per the manual the period of preservation of records would be 12 months from the date of booking of the article. Since the R.L. was booked on 27.6.2002 the same was destroyed as per rules. The department was not responsible for the alleged embezzlement of alleged demand draft. The complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. At any rate there was no deficiency in service on their part and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A9 marked while the appellants filed Exs. B1 and B2.
The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had admittedly sent a registered cover through Head Post Office, Eluru enclosing a demand draft for Rs. 10,000/- evidenced under Ex. A1 postal receipt and the same was encashed by some other person evidenced under Ex. A9. As the appellants did not serve to the correct address he sustained loss of Rs. 10,000/-, and therefore it directed the appellants to pay Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service besides Rs. 500/- towards costs.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the postal department preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not consider provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act and various decisions of Supreme Court and National Commission. There was no allegation of fraud or wanton negligence. In view of immunity from liability the order of the Dist. Forum is liable to be dismissed.
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has sent a registered cover on 27.6.2002 under acknowledgement due from Eluru Head Post Office to M/s. Vee Kay Auto Accessories, New Delhi evidenced under postal receipt Ex. A1. He alleges that he kept a demand draft taken on Punjab National Bank for Rs. 10,000/- in the name of S. Ramlal evidenced under Exs. A2 & A3. The fact that the complainant has sent the draft through registered cover had to be believed, since there was no contra evidence.
We may also state that the complainant did not insure the cover when he was sending the demand draft for Rs. 10,000/- It was under ordinary registered letter.
When the complainant had enquired with the Punjab National Bank by its letter Ex. A9 it informed that DD has been encashed on 2.7.2002. The complainant gave a complaint to the Head Post Master, Eluru on 22.7.2002 alleging that registered cover was not delivered to the addressee for which the appellant gave a reply stating that they were enquiring into the matter, and directed him to inform if he was in receipt of any acknowledgement of delivery of the said article evidenced under Exs. A4 to A7. Finally the complainant issued a registered notice under Ex. A8 mentioning that he would file a complaint if an amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered under R.L. was not paid to him as he had sustained loss due to the acts of the postal authorities. There was no mention in any of these notices that there was any fraud or wilful act or default leading to loss of postal article or non-delivery thereof.
Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act lays down that :
6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage The 11[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.
The liability of postal department has been considered at length by the National Commission in The Post Master, Imphal Vs. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband reported in I (2000) CPJ 28 (NC). After considering various decisions including the decision of Supreme Court reported in Union of India Vs. Mohd. Nazim reported in AIR 1980 SC 431 opined
“The law is well settled by a long line of decisions of the English Courts, the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts as well as the National Commission itself that Section 6 gives complete immunity to the Government and its employees except in the cases specified therein. We see no reason to depart from this well established principle.”
“Laws, of the land so long as they are in force have to be respected and followed. Article 372 of the Constitution specifically lays down that all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature.”
In a subsequent decision the National Commission in Head Post Master, Post office Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana & Ors. Vs. Vijay Rattam Aggarwal R.P. 15/1997 and batch after considering the subsequent amendments made to Indian Post Office Act and the rules framed there under opined :
“Scheme of Speed Post has been provided under Indian Post office Rules of 1933 by inserting Rule 66B. As noted above, these Rules are statutory. Complaints regarding any article booked under Speed Post (including demand for refund of fees in cases of non-delivery of articles within the stipulated time) are to be preferred within three months from the date of booking of the articles. Rule 66B was further amended by inserting two more sub rules which provided that in case of delay of Speed Post article beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts from time to time compensation will be provided which shall be equal to composite Speed Post charges paid. It also provided that in the event of loss of Speed Post article or loss of contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of the composite fee Speed Post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- which ever is less. It would be thus seen that maximum compensation statutorily fixed is Rs.1,000/- which can be granted when there is a loss of Speed Post article or loss of its contents or even damage to the contents. Norms to which reference has been made have been provided in the circular dated 22.1.99. Under Rule 83 letters or parcels containing coin, bullion, currency notes etc. are to be sent by post only in insured covers. Under Rule 83A 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 of despatch.”
Coming to the facts, assuming that the complainant had sent the demand draft worth Rs. 10,000/- it was by registered post and not through Speed Post nor the cover was insured. We may note that Rule 72 (1) of the Act provides for insurance of postal article where the value exceeds a particular amount. It reads as follows :
“72. (i) Registered letters, value payable registered letters, registered parcels and value payable registered parcels may be insured up to the value of Rs.600/- at such branch post offices, and up to the value of Rs.1,00,000/- at such other post offices, as may be authorised by the Postmaster General to accept articles for insurance and for such post offices as may be authorised by the Postmaster General to deliver insured articles:
Note: Where currency notes are despatched by insured post the value shall not exceed Rs.20,000/-.
Provided that in no case shall such value exceed the real value of the contents of the article insured:
Provided also that articles containing Government currency notes or bank notes or gold coin or bullion or gold ornaments or articles of gold any combination of these shall be insured for the actual value of the contents.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the insurance of all value payable articles on which the amount specified for recovery exceeds Rs.500/-, other than excepted articles, shall be compulsory for at least the amount specified for recovery from the addressee.
Explanation - In this rule ‘excepted articles’ mean -
(a) Value-payable packets;
(b) Value-payable letters containing railway goods receipts, legal documents, bonds, policies of insurance, promissory notes, bills of lading or ordinary bills for collection, which have no intrinsic value.
The complainant did not insure the registered cover though according to him, it contained a draft worth Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant could have impleaded the Punjab National Bank which had paid the DD to the person other than the drawee.
In fact in a decision reported in Union of India Vs. State Bank of India reported in II (2007) CPJ 60 (NC) the complainant therein impleaded the postal authorities as well as the bank which had paid the amount to another person. The bank had paid the amount obviously in view of proof that it had refunded the amount to wrong person which amounts to deficiency in service. However, the complaint against the postal department was dismissed by invoking Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act.
In view of the settled law, the complainant could not have recovered compensation from the postal authorities for loss of demand draft sent through registered post. He having not followed the provisions of Indian Post Office Act, he cannot turn round and complain deficiency in service on the part of postal authorities. He ought not to have sent it without first getting it insured. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order of the Dist. Forum does not sustain. The order of the Dist. Forum directing the appellants to pay Rs. 10,000/- together with costs of Rs. 500/- is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, each party to bear its own costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
Dt. 23. 01. 2009.
