Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/97

POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

KU.SANJANA RAJPUT - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2013

 (Arising out of order dated 20.12.2012 passed in C.C.No.163/2012 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

                                                    

PRAVAR ADHISHAK, POST OFFICE,

HEAD POST OFFICE, SAGAR.                                                                            …         APPELLANT.

 

                Versus

 

KU. SANJANA RAJPUT.                                                                                       …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

 

01.07.2024

 

     Shri H. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant.

     Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                   The opposite party/appellant-post office has filed this appeal against the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.163/2012 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.

2.                By filing this appeal the post office has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the speed post article sent by the complainant on 26.04.2012 was delivered to the addressee on 12.06.2012

-2-

and therefore there is no deficiency in service on part of the post office. The post office has distributed the postal article as per norms of speed post. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/appellant-post office referring to Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post Office Act’, stated that the post office cannot be held liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article, unless it is caused fraudulently or by willful act or default. He argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in allowing the complaint and in directing the post office to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/-. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

3.                On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the complainant sent an application for NET examination through speed post on 26.04.2012 to Bhoj Open University, Raja Bhoj Marg, Bhopal. The last date of deposition of application forms was 10.05.2012 whereas the opposite party post office delivered the said application on 12.06.2012 i.e. much beyond the last date and therefore she could not appear in the examination conducted on 24.06.2012. He argued that the District Commission after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly held the post office deficient

-3-

in service and has rightly directed to refund speed post charges of Rs.35/- along with compensation and costs.  

4.                Learned counsel for the post office further stated that the Government and the Government Officers, by Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post Office Act’ are exempted from all responsibilities in case of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage caused to the postal article in the course of transmission. 

5.                In order to appreciate the post office’s contention it is important to have a look at the relevant provisions of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898. Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898, provides as under –

“Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage – The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudently or by his wilful act or default”

 

6.                Pursuant to ‘Section 21’ of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898, ‘Indian Post Office Rules’, 1933 were framed. By amendment of the Statutory Rules in 1986, Rule 66B, relating to ‘Speed Post’ was introduced, and vide amendment in 1999, condition no 5 in rule 66B was inserted which reads as under  -

-4-

“ 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 the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/- whichever is less.

 

7.                It is apparently clear from the above mentioned provisions as also from various judgments of Hon’ble National Commission on this issue

that these cases are governed by Section 6 of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898 and Rule 66B. No fraudulent or wilful act or default is established by the complainant on part of the opposite party -post office in the matter. 

8.                In view of the above discussion even if it is presumed that there is deficiency in service on part of the post office in delayed delivery of postal article but the post office cannot be held liable as per provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act unless it is proved that delay occurred due to fraudulent or wilful act or default on part of the post office. As per Rule 66 B the sender is entitled for amount double to the speed post charges or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. However, since the complainant lost whole one year as her examination form did not deliver in time and she could not appear in the examination, we find that the interest of justice

 

-5-

would meet if the post office is directed to pay to the complainant speed post charges of Rs.35/- and Rs.5,000/- as compensation in all towards harassment caused to the complainant and costs.

9.                Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. The post office shall pay speed post charges Rs.35/- and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and costs to the complainant/respondent within a period of two months.

10.              In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.

 

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                             Member