DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB-152026 (PUNJAB).
C. C. No. 115 of 2014
Instituted On: 15-09-2014
Decided On: 04-03-2015
Mandeep Singh Son of Rajbeer Singh R/o Vill. Khunan Kalan, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
-Complainant.
Versus
1. Post Master, Main Post Office, near City Police Station, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. Superintendent, Post Office, near Railway Station, Faridkot.
3. General Post Master, Head office, Chandigarh.
-Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (68 of 1986) as amended up to date.
Quorum: Sh. A. K. Mehta, President.
Smt. Meenakshi, Member.
Present: Sh. Harmanjit Singh Grewal Advocate for Complainant,
Sh. R.S. Aulakh Advocate for Opposite Parties.
ORDER
(A.K. Mehta, President)
Mandeep Singh complainant has come to this Forum with a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called C.P. Act) against Post Master, Main Post Office, Sri Muktsar Sahib etc. Opposite Parties (OP) for directing the OP to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,200/- as litigation expenses on the allegations that complainant was to apply for the post of Band Staff in Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and last date for application form was 25.08.2014 and accordingly complainant sent his application form through registered post on 20.08.2014 and OP-1 assured the complainant that the registered cover would be sent to the concerned department on 23.08.2014; that OPs committed willful default or negligence and delivered the registered cover on 26.08.2014 after the expiry of last date for receipt of application form and due to this reason, registered cover was returned to complainant on the ground of late submission; that this act on the part of OPs is a deficiency in service and due to this reason, complainant failed to apply for the post and as such lost a great chance to get in service in the Punjab Police and the act & conduct of the OPs is illegal and willful default and negligence on
their part; that the act of the OP have also caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such complainant is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses. Hence complaint was filed.
2. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs and OPs appeared through counsel and filed reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Union of India is a necessary party but has not been impleaded in the complaint and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merit, it was admitted that complainant booked a registered letter on 20.08.2014 at Sri Muktsar Sahib Post Office and the same was dispatched to Bathinda R.M. on the same day and the said registered envelope was received at Phillaur S.O. on 26.08.2014 and it was sent for delivery on the same date but was refused by the Chairman, Bharti Board, PAP, Phillaur and the said registered evelope with the remarks “refused” was returned to Jallandhar R.M.S. on 28.08.2014. It was denied if there was any illegal act or willful default or negligence on the part of OPs. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied either for want of knowledge or being wrong and incorrect and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Parties were granted sufficient number of opportunities to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of advertisement Ex.C-2, Envelope Ex.C-3, report of Postman Ex.C-4, Postal receipt Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. Similarly OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt. Kamlesh Chohan, Superintendent, Main Post Office, Faridkot Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Sh. Bhagat Ram, Post Master, Sri Muktsar Sahib Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents and evidence produced on the file.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant applied for Band Staff at PAP Phillaur in Punjab Police and the last date of receipt of application was 25.08.2014 and accordingly, complainant posted the registered envelope on 20.08.2014 through OP-1 at Sri Mukstar Sahib and OP-1 assured the complainant that the registered cover would reach at the addressee on 23.08.2014 but due to negligence and default of OPs, the registered cover reached PAP, Phillaur on 26.08.2014 and the same was returned back due to late submission. He contended that due to illegal and willful default of OPs, complainant lost a chance to get the service in the Punjab Police and suffered financial loss. Complainant supported his arguments with case titled Branch Post Master, Village and Post Jaitpur & Ors. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Panday, 2009 (3) CLT, Page 170 and case titled Post Master, Mannanchery-Appellant Vs. D. Prathapan-Respondent, 1996 (3) C.P.J. 456 and contended that complaint requires to be allowed and complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.
7. The Ld. Counsel for the OP contended that complaint is based on presumption that complainant was to get the service if letter had been delivered in time. He further contended that complainant is not entitled to any compensation unless it is proved on the file that there was willful default or willful negligence on the part of OP and the complainant utterly failed to prove both these ingredients rather evidence on the file shows that the OP promptly acted and sent the letter to Bathinda R.M. and thereafter it was to be sent to Phillaur and the registered letter reached Phillaur Post Office only on 26.08.2014 and it was delivered on the same day to PAP, Phillaur though it was refused and it was returned to Jallandhar R.M.S. with endorsement ‘refused’ and as such, there was no willful default or negligence on the part of OP and no claim is maintainable u/s 6 of Post Offices Act and as such complainant is not entitled to any compensation etc. He supported his arguments with case titled Union of India & Anr. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. 2007 (1) CPC, Page 636, Director Postal Services A and N Islands, Port Blair and Another-Petitioner Vs. Miss Shyamali Ganguly, 2004 (1) CPC, Page 12 and case titled Department of Posts through Senior Supdt. Post Office, Ludhiana Vs. Sonu Thakur, 2001 (2) CPC, Page 39 and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
8. After going through the record of the case, evidence and documents produced on the file, this Forum does not find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. The complainant have stacked his claim u/s 6 of Post Offices Act. Section 6 of Post Offices Act reads as under:
“ Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage- The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of 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 hereinafter provided, and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”
The bare reading of Section 6 Supra shows that an exemption has been granted to the Post Office or its official in case of any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article unless the same has been caused due to some fraudulent act or willful act of default on the part of post office or its official. However, in the case in hand though the complainant have alleged willful default or negligence on the part of OP but have failed to substantiate the same on the file. Rather the evidence produced by the OP shows that there was no willful default or negligence on the part of OP rather OP acted promptly in dispatch of the registered cover and in the delivery of the registered cover though the same was refused by the addressee and the same was returned with the endorsement of refusal to the sender. The registered envelope was posted on 20.8.2014. Generally, the postal article is routed through different post offices as in the case in hand. The registered cover was firstly sent to main office at Bathinda and thereafter it was sent to Phillaur branch office through its main office. It has come on the file that the OP sent the registered cover on the same day to Bathinda RM i.e. 20.08.2014, the date when the registered cover was handed over to postal authorities. It has also come on the file that the registered cover reached Phillaur SO on 26.08.2014 and on the same day, it was sent for delivery to the addressee though it was refused and as such there was no willful default or negligence on the part of OPs. The facts of the case law referred by Ld. Counsel for complainant is quite distinguishable than the case in hand. In case titled Branch Post Master, Village and Post Jaitpur & Ors. Vs. Chandra Shekhar Panday Supra, the letter was sent to complainant on 08th July, 2002 requiring him to attend the interview on 16th July, 2002 and the letter reached post office of the complainant for distribution on 11th July, 2002 but it was delivered to complainant on 20th July, 2002 though it was a small post office in a small village and it could have been delivered on the same date and as such negligence was held on the part of post office and compensation was granted. Likewise, in case titled Postmaster, Mannauchery-Appellant Vs. D. Prathapan Supra, an invitation was sent to the complainant inviting him to attend the interview for the post of
Circulation agent on 17.1.95 and the letter reached the post office of the complainant on 13.01.95 but it was delivered only on 17.01.95 at 03:15 p.m. due to which reason, complainant could not attend the interview and willful default or negligence was held on the part of Post Office and compensation was granted. But in the case in hand, there was no willful negligence or default on the part of Post Office as the registered cover was given by the complainant on 20.08.2014 and it was dispatched to Bathinda RM on the same date and thereafter the registered cover reached Phillaur SO on 26.8.2014 and it was delivered on the same day i.e. 26.08.2014 though it was refused by the addressee and it was returned to the sender with the endorsement ‘refused’ immediately and as such, there was no willful negligence or default on the part of the OP and as such OP is exempted from any penal action u/s 6 of Post Offices Act in the circumstances of the case in hand.
9. In the light of above discussion, the complaint is meritless and the same is hereby dismissed. However, in the view of peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per law and after compliance, file be consigned to records.
Dated: 04-03-2015.
Smt. Meenakshi A. K. Mehta
Member President
