KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 320/2003 JUDGMENT DATED. 11.12.2007 Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.No. 822/02 PRESENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Chief Postmaster General of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Senior Supdt. of Post Offices, Kottayam Division, Kottayam. : APPELLANTS 3. The Sub Postmaster, Kottayam Collectorate. 4. The Postmaster, East Marady.P.O., Muvattupuzha. (M.P.Sasidharan Nair, agent) Vs. M.U.Annakutty, Managing Partner, : RESPONDENT Mahima Rubber Tech, East Marady, Muvattupuzha. (By Adv.Tom Joseph) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 11th February 2003 of CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.No.822/02 which was preferred by the respondent as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties claiming compensation on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties repudiated the claim for compensation by relying on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The lower Forum accepted the case of the complainant to a certain extent and thereby directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.500 to the complainant as compensation with cost of Rs.250/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party therein. 2. We heard the authorised agent of the appellants/opposite parties and the counsel for the respondent/complainant. The authorised agent relied on the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. He also cited the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in III (2002) CPJ 429(NC). It is submitted that the maximum compensation that can be awarded is Rs.100/-. Thus, the appellants requested to modify the impugned order passed by the lower Forum. On the otherhand, the counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the lower Forum and requested for dismissal of the present appeal. He also relied on Ext.A1 to A10 documents produced from the side of he complainant in OP.822/02. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether the lower Forum can be justified in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in the matter of returning the postal article and also collecting fine of Rs.2/- from the complainant? 2) Is there occurred any sustainable ground to interfere with the order passed by the lower Forum in OP.822/02? 4. Points 1 and 2:- Admittedly the respondent/complainant entrusted the postal article with the officials of the postal department for its onward delivery . It is also an admitted fact that the said postal article was not delivered and it was returned to the complainant/sendor. The fact that the officials of the postal department levied the fine of Rs.2/- from the complainant by way of penalty on the ground that the stamps affixed on the postal article were not genuine stamps. But subsequently it is admitted by the2nd appellant/2nd opposite party that there occurred default on the part of officials of the postal department in returning the postal article on the finding that the stamps affixed on the postal article were not genuine. Exts.A9 and A10 documents would support the case of the complainant that there occurred deficiency in service on the part of the concerned postal officials who found the stamps as not genuine. Thus, the aforesaid default committed by the concerned officials of the postal department amounts to deficiency in service. The lower Forum has also considered the decision rendered by the State Commission reported in III (1999) CPJ 607. The lower Forum is fully justified in holding that there occurred deficiency in service on the part of the officials of the postal department. We do not find any ground to interfere with the said findings and conclusions made by the lower Forum. 5. The argument of the appellants that they are not liable to pay compensation by virtue of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 cannot be upheld. It is an admitted fact that there occurred default in delivering the postal article and the officials of the postal department had also gone wrong in collecting Rs.2/- as penalty from the complainant who happened to be the sendor of the postal article which was addressed to the Secretary Rubber Board, Kottayam. The safeguards given by virtue of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 would not come to the rescue of the appellants/opposite parties. It is made clear in Section 6 itself that in case of willfull act of negligence or fraud or willful act of default, the postal department is answerable and liable for compensation . In this case default on the part of the concerned officials of the postal department has been proved. If that be so, lower Forum is justified in ordering compensation of Rs.500/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case compensation of Rs.500/- awarded to the complainant can only treated as reasonable. We do not find any ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation and cost ordered by the lower Forum. The decision relied on by the appellants has no application in the present case. In the reported case there was no material to support default or willful act on the part of the officials of the postal department. So, the present appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so. The points are answered accordingly. In the result appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the lower Forum is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER | 
