Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/1765

ABUL HASSAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

SH.MUKESH SHIRVASTAVA

21 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1765 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 03.10.2016 passed in C.C.No.180/2015 by District Commission, Chhindwara)

 

ABUL HASAN,

S/O MOHAMMAD ISMAIL,

R/O WARD NO.12, NEAR JYOTI TALKIES,

CHACHA MOHALLA, CHANDAMETA,

POST & POLICE STATION-CHANDAMETA,

TEHSIL-PARASIA, DISTRICT-CHHINDWARA (M.P.).                                   …  APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

MANAGER, POST OFFICE,

CHANDAMETA, TEHSIL-PARASIA,

DISTRICT-CHHINDWARA (M.P.)                                                                 …   RESPONDENT.   

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER        

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Vishnu Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 21.05.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President: 

                   The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhindwara (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.180/2015 whereby the complaint filed by him has been allowed.

2.                Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant had appeared in examination for appointment in M. P. Adhinastha Lekha Sewa Samvarg.  Directorate of Treasury and Accounts, Madhya Pradesh sent a

-2-

letter dated 26.09.2015 to the complainant via speed post directing him to produce no objection certificate from the employer till 05.10.2015 failing which it will be deemed that you are not interested in the current job and thereafter no claim will be considered. It is alleged that the said letter sent on 26.09.2015 at 18:46 hours was received by him on 06.10.2015 whereas as per contents of the said letter the complainant had to appear before the Directorate of Treasury and Accounts, Madhya Pradesh, Paryawas Bhawan, Bhopal with the NOC of the employer till 05.10.2015 but due to carelessness and negligence on part of the opposite party-post office the complainant failed to remain present on 05.10.2015 and was deprived of appointment in M. P. Adhinastha Lekha Samvarg. The complainant also sent legal notice to the opposite party but the opposite party-post office did not take any action. Aggrieved complainant therefore approached the District Commission seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

3.                The opposite party/respondent-post office in their reply before the District Commission except admitted facts denied the other allegations made in the complaint.  It is submitted that the post office is not taking details regarding contents of the envelope by the sender. Since there was no correct address on the questioned envelope and therefore, it took time to search the addressee. On the envelope there is address of Parasia

-3-

whereas the complainant is residing at Chandameta. For the incorrect address given by the complainant to the sender, the complainant himself is responsible for delayed delivery of subject postal article. The post office has distributed the postal articles as per norms of speed post. The postal article was delivered to the complainant after taking his receipt.         Speed post article booked by the sender was delivered to its destination and therefore there is no deficiency in service on part of the post office.  The opposite party/respondent-post office referring to Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post Office Act’, stated that the post office cannot be held liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article, unless it is caused fraudulently or by willful act or default. Between the postal department and the complainant there is no relationship of service provider and the consumer. The complainant is not entitled to file a complaint. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                The District Commission partly allowing the complaint and directed the opposite party/respondent-post office to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental pain within one month failing which the amount shall carry interst @ 9% p.a.f from the date of order till payment.  Costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded.

5.                Heard.  Perused the record.

-4-

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that though the District Commission has concluded that there was deficiency in service on part of the post office in delayed delivery of postal article due to which the complainant was deprived of his appointment but has awarded a meager amount towards compensation. He argued that the District Commission did not consider the prayer of the complainant that he sought Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation as due to negligence of opposite party he was deprived of a job of second class officer. It is therefore prayed that by modifying the impugned order, the awarded compensation be increased from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-post office  argued that the District Commission has erred in not appreciating the fact that the speed post article booked by the sender was delivered to the addressee i.e. the complainant and delay occurred only due to incomplete address mentioned on the envelope and therefore the complainant himself is liable for delayed delivery of postal article as he has not given correct address to the sender.

8.                Learned counsel further stated that the Government and the Government Officers, by Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post Office Act’ as well as Section 81 of ‘Post Office Guide’ are exempted from all responsibilities in case of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage caused to the post article in the

-5-

course of transmission.  He further submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as he did not pay any consideration for hiring services of the post office.

9.                In order to appreciate the post office’s contention it is important to have a look at the relevant provisions of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898. Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898, provides as under –

“Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage – The 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 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudently or by his wilful act or default”

 

10.              Pursuant to ‘Section 21’ of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898, ‘Indian Post Office Rules’, 1933 were framed. By amendment of the Statutory Rules in 1986, Rule 66B, relating to ‘Speed Post’ was introduced, and vide amendment in 1999, condition no 5 in rule 66B was inserted which reads as under  -

“ In case of any delay of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the Department of Post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charge paid.

In the event of loss of domestic speed post article 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.

 

11.              It is apparently clear from the above mentioned provisions as also from various judgments of Hon’ble National Commission on this issue

-6-

that these cases are governed by Section 6 of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898 and Rule 66B. No fraudulent or wilful act or default is established by the complainant on part of the opposite party/respondent-post office in the matter.  

12.              In view of the above discussion we find that the complainant did not sent the post article by speed post after paying consideration and therefore he cannot be termed as a consumer. Though he can be termed as beneficiary as recipient of the postal article.

13.              In view of the foregoing discussion, even if it is presumed that there is deficiency in service on part of the post office in delayed delivery of postal article but the post office cannot be held liable as per provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act unless it is proved that delay occurred due to fraudulent or wilful act or default on part of the post office. As per Rule 66 B the sender is entitled for amount double to the speed post charges or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. However, since there is no appeal by the opposite party/respondent-post office, we find that the compensation awarded by the District Commission is just and proper. Though the complainant is not entitled to get any relief but the District Commission has adequately compensated the complainant. When there is no appeal of the post office, we maintain the impugned order passed by

 

-7-

the District Commission. We do not find any merit in the ground for enhancement of compensation.

14.              In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.  

 

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                             Member