Haryana

StateCommission

A/297/2016

GENERAL POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

LAXMI NARAYAN - Opp.Party(s)

NAMIT KUMAR

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :  297 of 2016

Date of Institution: 11.04.2016

Date of Decision :  10.11.2016

 

1.      General Post Office, Circular Road, Rewari, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari through Post Master, General Post Office, Circular Road, Rewari, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.

2.      Post Office Dahina, Sub Tehsil Dahina, Distt. Rewari, through Post Master Dahina, Distt. Rewari.

3.      Post Office, Motla Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari through Post Master Post Office Motla Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.

 

                                      Appellants- Opposite Parties

Versus

Laxmi Narayan Son of Sh. Nityanand c/o Shiv Lal Yadav, Village Motla Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.

 

                                      Respondent- Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellants

                             Ms. Nisha Chandla, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                  

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          General Post Office, Circular Road, Rewari and its sub Post Offices-opposite parties (appellants herein) are in appeal against the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 138 of 2014 vide which complaint was allowed and following order was passed:-

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, this complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- to the complainant.  The compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which all the awarded amount shall fetch interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment”.

2.      Laxmi Narayan- complainant filed complaint with the allegations that he has appeared for written examination for appointment in Railway Protection Force (RPF).  The written examination was held on 24.06.2013, which he qualified.  He received a letter on 06.03.2014 which was dated 15.02.2014 issued by RPF Authorities for appearance on 06.03.2014 at 03:00 PM for physical test.  Since he received the letter at 03:00 PM on 06.03.2014 therefore, he could not appear for the said test.  Thus alleging deficiency in service complainant filed complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

3.      Opposite parties in their written version denied all the allegations/averments of the complaint and pleaded that there was no information available as it was an ordinary mail which was received in the name of complainant on 06.03.2014 and was delivered on the same day.

4.      It is not disputed that letter Exhibit PW2 was issued by the RPF Authorities for appearance, though dated 25.02.2014 addressed to the complainant directing him to appear for physical test on 06.03.2014 at 06:00 AM  which was sent by ordinary post.  It was not issued by any recorded delivery i.e. registered/speed post.  No record of ordinary post is maintained.  There are no allegations that there was any willful or intentional default on the part of any official of the opposite parties.  Hon’ble National Commission in Ajay Pal Vs. Post Office Rohtak in Revision Petition No. 433 of 2013 observing that the service rendered by Post office was not a contractual liability and held as under:-

“We have also perused Section 6.  There is not even an iota of evidence that the loss was caused fraudulently or by postman’s willful act or default.  Mere negligence does not suffer.  The element of mens-rea is conspicuously missing under section 6. It is the loss of the Government and not loss to the owner of the postal articles. The liability of Government of India for loss or miss-delivery of insured articles and loss in the course of transmission by post is not contractual but purely statutory in nature.  This commission in its 4 Bench Members in the case of The Presidency Post Master and another versus Dr. U. Shanker Rao, (N.C.), Revision Petition Nos. 175 and 247 of 1992, Decided on 15.04.1993, were pleased to hold that “Services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability.  Establishing the Post Offices and running the postal service the Central Government performs a governmental function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for the article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges posed by the State for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier”.

 5.     District Forum did not take all the aspects into the consideration while allowing the complaint therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs. 9,088/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 10.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

DK