Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/170/2011

Vivek Kumar S/o Sunehra Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master General - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.sharma

03 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint No. 170  of  2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 01.03.2011

                                                                                          Date of decision: 03.02.2017

 

Vivek Kumar aged about 17 ½ years minor son of Shri Sunehra Singh, resident of Vijay Colony, Near Bye Pass, Yamuna Nagar minor through is father Shri Sunehra Singh.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Post Master General, Ambala Cantt, Distt. Ambala.
2. Post Master, Main Post Office, Near Bus Stand, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                               … Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               None for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that complainant was a student of 10+2 class from Medical subjects and he wanted to undergo AFMC entrance examination,2011 offered by the Armed Forces Medical College, Pune (AFMC) and the last date for submission of Form was 07.02.2011. The complainant firstly got registered himself online and thereafter filled up the Form and sent the same by speed post to the Office Incharge, Dean’s Office, AFMC, Pune on 94.02.2011 through Op No.2. At the time of speed post the OPs assured the complainant that the said Form of the complainant would reach to Pune at its destination well within time as the postal department is bound to deliver the documents sent through speed post within 24 hours. The complainant paid requisite charges to the OPs for speed post vide receipt No. EH5003448 IN dated 04.02.2011. In this way, the complainant has hired the services of the OPs. The complainant remained under impression that the Form of the complainant would have reached at its destination before 07.02.2010 (i.e. the closing date announced by the AFMC) but the complainant was astonished when he received back the envelope on 11.02.2011 which was received by the complainant on 14.02.2011 at home. After that, complainant approached the OP No.2 to enquire about the matter but the OPs refused to listen the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant also telephonically contacted the AFMC College but they showed their inability to help the complainant and even not permitted to take the examination despite after circumstances as detailed above explained to them. Due to the above noted act, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony, harassment and loss of career. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs. 90,000/- as damages on account of losing one chance to take the entrance examination due to non delivery of the Application Form and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the post office is exempted from any liability for loss, mis delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except to such extent, as the liability may be under-taken by the Govt. in express terms (Annexure R-1). This action is equally applicable to the articles sent by speed post for which provisions have been made under Indian Post Office Rules 1933 by inserting Rule No. 66B. Even these rules were further amended by notification GSR 40 ( E ) dated 21.01.1999 which inserted the following conditions after condition No. 5 of rule 66 (B). “ In case of any delay of domestic speed post article beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts from time to time, the compensation to be paid shall be equal to composite speed post charge paid. In the event of loss of the domestic speed post articles 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” (Annexure R-2). Further as per section 29 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the Central Govt. is empowered to make rules as to the Registered Mail/Speed Post and the manner of delivery etc. The relevant rules relating to instant complaint are broadly discussed in the orders dated 18.09.2002 of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action; complainant has not specifically lodged any allegation against any officer of the OPs for fraudulent or willful act, so under the provision of section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, the Department of posts is free from all liabilities; complaint is not maintainable; the speed post charges of Rs. 25/- has been sanctioned to the complainant vide this office memo No. CR2/18/10-11 dated 28.04.2011 (Annexure R-4) and on merit it has been admitted that one speed post article was booked from Yamuna Nagar Head Post Office vide article No. EH 115008448IN on 04.02.2011 which was addressed to the office Incharge Armed Forces Medical College, Pune. The article in question was correctly dispatched for destination office. The said article was received at Pune on 08.02.2011 and the same was returned back to the sender on 11.02.2011 with remarks refused. Rest contents of the complaint were denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                     In support of the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of Form as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of postal receipt dated 04.02.2011 as Annexure C-2, Original Envelope of speed post as Annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.

4                      On the other hand, OPs failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order on 10.06.2016. However, at the time of filing of written statement, OPs tendered some documents such as attested copy of true exact language of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Gazette Notification dated 21.01.1999 as Annexure R-2, Copy of judgment of Hon’ble National Commission of case titled as Union of India and others Versus R.C. Puri, as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of sanctioned order dated 28.04.2011 for Rs. 25/- as Annexure R-4 in support of their version.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that due to non delivery of the speed post in time by the OPs, the complainant has suffered a chance to take entrance examination in the medical subjects offered by the AFMC, so the complainant is entitled to get compensation as well as litigation expenses and referred the case law titled as Branch Post Master, Village and Post Jaitpur & Others Versus Chander Shekhar Pandey , 2009 (3) CLT Page 170.

7.                     On the other hand, it is the version of the OPs that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 exempts post office from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal articles in the course of transmission by post, except to such extent, as the liability may be undertaken by the Government in expressed terms. Denying other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed for dismissal of complaint. It has been further mentioned by the Ops that no claim will lie against the postal department or its officer merely on the ground that there has been loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission, unless the same has been caused fraudulently by the officer of the post office or by his willful act or any default. From the perusal of Section 6 of the Act, 1898       (Annexure R-1) it is clear that claim for compensation will lie at the instance of the Consumer only if consumer proves that delay was caused fraudulently or by willful act or by default by the official of the post office.

8.                     In the present case, the complainant has not leveled any allegations against any specific official of the department of posts alleging that loss of the postal article was caused by the said employee with fraudulent intention or by willful act or default on his part. In so far as the Government is concerned, Section 6 grants complete immunity to the Government of the liability for loss, mid-delivery, delay or damage to the postal articles. The scope of the section 6 was considered comprehensively by a 5 members Bench of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Post Master, Imphal & Others Versus Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband 2000(1) CPJ Page 28 National Commission wherein it has been held that “ the Section 6 very clearly lays down that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, mis delivery or delay 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 provided by the statute 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.” The same view has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula in case titled as Head Post Master Versus Bhupinder Singh, First Appeal No. 1064/2016 decided on 17.01.2017.

9.                     Since the complainant has not raised allegations against any individual official and did not lead any evidence to prove that the loss was caused on account of fraud or willful act or by any default on the part of the postal officials, the OPs cannot be held liable to pay compensation. The authority Branch Post Master, Village and Post Jaitpur & Others Versus Chander Shekhar Pandey(Supra) tendered by the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas the facts of the present complaint are squarely covered as per judgment of our Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana case titled as Head Post Master Versus Bhupinder Singh, First Appeal No. 1064/2016 decided on 17.01.2017(supra).

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 03.02.2016.

 

                                                                                    ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                               

 

 

                                                                              (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                               MEMBER