PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. There is a delay of 87 days in filing the instant revision petition. The petitioner has explained the delay in para No. 2 of the application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under:- “2. That on receipt of copy of the decision of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, the case was taken up to Chief Post master General Haryana Circle Ambala for further action. CPMG Ambala further took up the matter with ministry of Law & Justice for advice. For the purpose lot of time is lapsed for advice and filing of revised petition in the Hon’ble court. In this regard for taking permission of above mentioned formalities is the cause of delay.” 2. Arguments heard. Counsel for the respondent submits that the delay should not be condoned as per the judgment of this Court itself wherein the delay of 152 days was not condoned and this Commission has placed reliance on various authorities reported in the cases of Vikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 SC 1221, Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Ors. Vs. Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104, State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752; Bhag Singh & Ors. Vs. Major Daljit Singh & Ors. 1987 Supp. 685 and N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Mrishnamurty (1998) 7 SCC 123, Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Sow Kamalabai, W/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and Narsaiyya, S/o Sayanna Shrimal Vs. Ganpat Vithalroa Gavare, 2007 (1) Mh. LJ 807, Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ramesh Kumar, 1996 (2) CCC 150 (Del) & State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)-II (2009) SLT793=2009 CTJ 481 [Supreme Court] (CP), in case of Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221, Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 & Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC). 3. Counsel for the respondent further explains that day to day delay was never explained. He also points out that in the case of Prithiviraj Narayanrao Chavan versus National Seeds Corporation Ltd. in Revision Petition No. 3829 & 3829-A of 2007, decided on 03.01.2012 delay of 46 days was not condoned. He has also invited our attention towards the authority reported in the case of Office of the Chief Poster General & Ors. Versus Living Media Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012, decided on 24.02.2012 wherein there was a delay of 427 days. He has also referred to another authority report ed in the case of Kalagonda Dhulgonda Patil versus Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation & Ors. In Revision Petition No. 3965 of 2009, decided on 31.10.2011, where was delay of 70 days and the application was dismissed with payment of Rs. 30,000/- as costs. Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no reasonable cause and the case should be dismissed as barred by time. 4. We see force in his arguments in a measure. This is a matter of discretion of Court to accept or reject the application for condonation of delay and particularly when the merits of the case are strong. Each case has its own facts. It cannot be laid down as a rule of thumb that every application for condonation of delay is to be rejected. There lies no rub for the Commission to accept the delay application subject to payment of reasonable costs. All the authorities are different and have no application to this case. In the Interest of justice, the application for condonation of delay subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the complainant is accepted, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already given Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges. It may also be mentioned that the whole case revolves around the paltry sum of Rs. 20,000/-. 5. Now we turn to the merits of this case. The complainant Piyush Minocha is presently working as Law Officer. He was to appear in Judicial Examination in Punjab. For that he was to clear the Punjabi language 10th examination. The Board had sent the Roll No. on 12th August 2009 through UPC wherein it was stated that the additional paper of Punjabi will be held on 24.08.2009. However, it was delivered on 05.09.2009, after the examination was over. The complainant/respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment etc. Aggrieved by that order, the Union of India -OPs preferred an appeal before the State Commission and found no favour with the State Commission. The same was dismissed. 6. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the fora below does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. He has invited our attention towards judgment of this Court reported in Branch Post Master, Village and Post Jaitpur & Ors. Versus Chandra Shekhar Pandey in Revision Petition No. 2924 of 2008, decided on 17.12.2008 wherein compensation was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-, it was held that non delivery was willful and intentional act on the part of the respondents. 7. Same view was taken in another authority reported in the case of Superintendent of Post and Telegraph Versus M.L.Gupta and Anr. Revision Petition No. 3777 of 2008, decided on 5.11.2008, wherein it was held that shelter of Section 6 of the Post Office Act was not available as complainant had suffered primary loss due to negligent act of postal employees. 8. Further counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners cannot take shelter of Section 6 if they are negligent. Para No. 4 of the written statement clearly reveals the negligence on their part. 9. We are unable to locate subsistence in these arguments. The Apex Court in an authority reported in the case of Union of India versus Mohd. Nazim, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 431, was pleased to hold :- “These are only some of the provisions of the Act which seem to indicate that the post office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of the sender of the postal article for reaching it to the addressee. It is really a branch of the public service, providing postal services subject to the provisions of the India Post Office Act and the rules made thereunder. The law relating to the post office in England is not very much different from that in this country. In Triafus and Co. Ltd. v. Post Office (1957) 2 QB 352, the court of appeal held that the post office is a branch of revenue and the Post Master General does not enter into any contract with a person who entrusts to the post office a postal packet for transmission overseas. This decision approves the observations of Lord Mansfield in Whitfield v. Le Despencer (1778) 2 Cowp. 754. In the course of his judgment, Lord Mansfield said, “The Post Master has no hire, enters into no contract, carries on no merchandize or commerce. But the post office is a branch of revenue, and a branch of police, created by Act of Parliament. As a branch of revenue, there are great receipts; but there is likewise a great surplus of benefit and advantage to the public, arising from the fund. As a branch of police it puts the whole correspondence of the kingdom (for the exceptions are very trifling) under government, and entrusts the management and direction of it to the crown, and officers appointed by the crown. There is no analogy therefore between the case of the Post Master an a common carrier.” 10. 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 suffice. 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 mis-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 15.4.1993, 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.” 11. Same view was taken in another judgment of this Commission reported in the Post Master, Imphal and others versus Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, 2000(1) CLT 577. 12. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the order of the Fora below are dismissed. |
