AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 459/2007  against C.C. 88/2002, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam.

Between:

1. The Superintendent of Post Offices

Srikakulam Division

Srikakulam.

2. The Post Master General

Postal Department, Gurudwar

Balayya Layout, Sithammadhara

Visakapatnam.              

3.  The Chief Postmaster General

Postal Department

Abids, Hyderabad.                                      ***                         Appellants/

                                                                                                Opposite Parties

And

Podilapu Balumahendra Naidu

S/o. Krishna Murthy Naidu

Plot No. E-9,

F9, Industrial Estate

Amadalavalasa

Srikakulam Dist.                                       ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                      Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants:                        Mr.  V. Vinod Kumar

Counsel for the Resp:                                 Served.

CORAM:

                          HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

&

                                          SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER

THURSDAY,  THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party postal   authorities against the order of  the Dist. Forum  directing  them  to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

2)                 The case of the complainant in brief is that  he  being  an  Engineering Graduate  sought admission  in  Diploma in  Advance Computing  (DAC)  for  February, 2000  by sending  an application along with demand draft for Rs. 600/- on 10.11.2001  by  speed post at Srikakulam by paying Rs. 30/- towards charges.   However, the cover was returned to him  at Amadalavalasa instead of delivering it to the addressee.   This was due to  sheer  negligence  of the postal department he lost an opportunity of securing a seat and consequently future prospects.    On that he issued registered notice demanding compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs  towards damages for which  the appellant  sent an Inspector  to conduct enquiry.  However he did not finalise.  He was not aware of the outcome of the enquiry.   Alleging deficiency in service he claimed  Rs. 2 lakhs towards compensation together with penal interest and costs.

3)                The appellant postal authorities resisted the case.   It alleged that except for the loss of articles sent by  VPP/Insured articles  the post office does not receive any consideration for the service  and therefore not liable to pay any compensation.   While  admitting that  the speed post article was received on 12.11.2001 through Speed Post Centre, Hyderabad-1 bag Dt. 11.11.2001,  however, the same was despatched to Amudalavalasa once again.   Therefore a search bill was issued  on  5.2.2002 to trace out the cause for return of the  speed post article.   The same being enquired into.   By virtue of Section  6 of the  Indian Post Offices Act it was not liable  in regard to any loss or damage to any of the articles  in course of transmission by post except   in so far as such liability may be in express terms  unless he  has caused the same fraudulently  or by wilful act or default.   The services rendered are statutory  and not contractual.  Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4)                The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A12 marked, while the appellant postal authorities filed the  affidavit evidence of  the Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.   

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record  opined that  the appellants having collected the required fee  to deliver Ex. A2  to the addressee re-delivered to the complainant,   without verifying the name of the addressee.  It  amounts to deficiency in service.  It  allowed the complaint directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

6)                Aggrieved by the said order, the postal authorities preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate  either the facts or law in  its correct perspective.   No compensation could be awarded  in view of Section 6 of the IPO Act  and the rules governing there under particularly  speed post articles.    Though it is a case of mis-delivery,   the postal  authorities are exempt from liability by virtue of  Section  6 of the IPO Act.    In the light of  statutory provisions, it was not liable to pay any compensation  and therefore  prayed that the appeal be allowed.

7)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the  appellant was not liable to pay any compensation for mis-delivery of  speed post article?

8)                It is an undisputed fact that  the complainant submitted  a speed post article  addressed to  CDAC at Hyderabad  on 10.11.2001 at the post office at Amudalavalasa  by paying Rs. 30/- towards charges evidenced under Exs. A1 & A2.    The last date for submission of  application for entrance test in CDAC being 12.11.2001    Instead of delivering  the cover to the addressee  it was returned  and delivered back to the complainant on 13.11.2001.    The appellants themselves admitted  in their grounds of appeal at para- 4 stating “ The speed post article booked on 10.11.2001 was returned to sender and delivered on him on 13.11.2001 which was a mis-delivery.  It is also submitted that the postal department  is exempted from any liability for loss mis-delviery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission except to the extent provided in the second part of  Section 6 of IPO Act.”   

9)                 In Ex. B2  Sri T. C. Ramanaiah, TS, SA, HRO, Hyderabad gave his statement to the postal authorities  in an enquiry initiated in this regard.   He stated that “ The SPA  in question was despatched by our set.   Sri P. G. Krishna opened the bags and sorted the  contents SA wise.  The contents meant for Srikakulam Road were given to me.    It is not known at this stage of time lapse of 8 months  how it was sorted by  P.G. Krishna to Srikakulam Road instead of Begumpet P.O. for which  SA No. 5  Sri A. Venkateswarlu  who closes the bag for Begumpet  P.O. From the sorting it clearly shows  the letter must have been marked with address and senders address confusingly  which might have resulted in despatching  the article back to Srikakulam Road.   Until and unless  the wrapper of the article is examined the reasons for such return to Srikakulam  Road  cannot be explained.”

10)               The question is how far the postal authorities are liable for this mis-delivery.   Though it is mis-delivery, however it cannot be said it is either fraudulent  or wilful act or by default.    The postal authorities could prove that the cover was despatched on the very same day  on the day when the complainant booked the cover and sent it  by  speed post.  At the stage of sorting  it was somehow  mixed up with other covers and sent it to Srikakulam Road instead of Begumpet.   The Post Office at Amudalavalas promptly  acted in despatching the cover, however the sorting office at Hyderabad mistakenly sent back the cover to the complainant.    This delay at any rate could not be attributed to the postal authorities.  This mishap of mis-delivery cannot be said to be a fraudulent act on the part of  postal authorities.  Equally it cannot be termed as default or  wilful act on its part. 

11)               The question whether it can be termed as default  on its part.  Section 6 of the IPO Act is  relied in this regard which reads as follows :

          6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage The 11[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 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.

12)              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.”

13)              In a subsequent decision the National Commission in  Head Post Master, Post office Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana & Ors. Vs. Vijay Rattam Aggarwal in 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.”

14)              Coming to the facts,  assuming that there was wilful delay since the covers were sent by speed post,   the maximum compensation  shall be double the amount of  speed post charges paid or  Rs. 1,000/- whichever is less.    The 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.    What all the cover contained  is the application which cannot be valued in terms of money.   Since the complainant had paid Rs. 30/- towards speed post charges,  by virtue of above provisions,  what all the complainant is entitled to is Rs. 60/-  being the double the amount of speed post charges or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is less.    Since the contents or articles had no value  in terms of money and that the complainant did not mention its value, undoubtedly the complainant is entitled  double the amount  viz., Rs. 60/-.

15)              To sum up, the postal authorities  mis-delivered the article as there was mishap  at the time of sorting, it cannot be said that  the same was fraudulently done or a  wilful act  on the part of postal authorities.   

16)              In view of settled law, the complainant  is not entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Dist. Forum.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that by virtue of  Section 6 of  Indian Post Office Act  and the IPO Rules  referred to above, the postal authorities are liable to pay Rs. 60/- towards compensation.

17)              In the result the appeal is allowed in part directing the postal authorities to pay  Rs. 60/- together with costs of Rs. 100/-.  Consequently, the order of the Dist. Forum is modified granting the above amount by setting aside   compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Dist. Forum.  However in the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear its own costs in the appeal.  Time for compliance four weeks.

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

   Dt.  24.  12.  2009.

*pnr

“ UP LOAD  – O.K.”