ORDER
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that on 16.04.2012 complainant had booked a parcel vide postal receipt No.RD-0679 564 951-IN at the PO, Civil Lines to U.K. It is alleged that on addressee reporting non-delivery complainant vide his letter dated 04.05.2012 lodged complaint thereof with the O.P. It was followed by an email. Complaint was lodged promptly on the 18th day after dispatch. It is further alleged that this was followed by personal visit to post office, it being next door. It is alleged that post office sought some details which were furnished the same day itself. It is alleged that despite several requests and reminder to the O.P, complainant did not receive any satisfactory reply nor the postal article has been delivered till date. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to pay the value of articles lost in the parcel of Rs.19,690/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P appeared and filed its written statement. A preliminary objection has been taken that present complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as Indian Post Office Act) which exempts the Government or officials of postal department from any liability for loss, delay or damage to postal article in course of transmission by post unless delay or damage has been caused fraudulently or by willful act or default of the postal authorities. On merits it has not been disputed that complainant had booked the speed post article on 16.04.2012. However, its case is that the article under reference has been delivered to its addressee in safe and sound condition by DIMC-1 on 19.04.2012 through Flight No.KU0382/KU0101 leaving on 21.04.2012. It is alleged that as the postal administration of England have authorized the Postal Department to compensate the sender of the article, accepting full liability as no track and trace is available at their end. Hence a sum of Rs.2,137/- being the fully liability equivalent to 30 SDR is sanctioned as per Article 29 of UPU Convention Rules by Circle office vide their Memo No.INV/19-8-79/2012 dated 18.12.2012. But the complainant instead of taking payment filed the present case. It is alleged that there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint. On the other hand Shri Vicky Kumar, Sr. Superintendent has filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P. Written submissions have also been filed by both the parties.
4. We have carefully gone through the records and have heard submissions of complainant and Ld. Counsel for the O.P
5. The main controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the O.P is liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant due to loss of article sent through O.P. The stand of O.P is that they are not liable. That the department of post is exempted from liability Under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and such they cannot be held liable for the loss of article dispatch by O.P to the destination. However, it has come on record that the O.P under the instruction of Postal Telegraph Office England which owned the liability of loss of article of the complainant, the O.P offered a sum of Rs.2,137/- being full liability equivalent to 30 SDR as per Article 29 of UPU Convention Rules by Circle Office vide memo No.INV/19-8-79/2012 dated 18.12.2012. But the complainant instead of taking payment filed the present case which is not maintainable under the Indian Post Office Act. Counsel for the complainant vehemently stressed that O.P are liable to make good the loss because the liability has been owned by the Post Office of England and also offered legal sum of Rs.2,137/- where the loss suffered by complainant is Rs.19,690/- being value of the article lost. He further submitted that O.P is liable because the article dispatched by them did not reach its destination due to mishandling. The complainant has also alleged that the articles stood misappropriated by will-fully intercepting the same in transit.
6. We have considered the rival contention raised by the parties. It is to be see whether the O.P can seek exemption under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which reads as under;
“Section 6. 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 in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the (Central Government) concerned post-office 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”.
Vide Notification dated 21/1/1999, the Indian Post Office Rules have been further amended which is as follows :
“In case of delay in delivery 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”.
On reading the above it becomes crystal clear that the Postal Department and its Official are exempted from any liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post, unless it is establish that such loss, misdelivery or delay was caused fraudulently or by way of willful act or default. The provision of section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 came to be considered in case titled The Presidency Post Master and Anr. Vs Dr. U. Shanker Rao II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC) and also judgment in RP No.4567/2012 titled as Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Vs Dharamveer Harijan and the Bench interpreted section 6 as under;
“The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay, 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, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
Counsel for the Revision Petitioner inter-alia relies on the said provision and contents that no claim will lie against the Postal Department or its officers merely on the ground that there has been loss/ misdelivery, delay or damage or to any postal article in the course of transmission by the Postal Department unless the same has been caused fraudulently by the officer complained against of the post office or by his willful act or any default. Under the scheme of the Act the claim for compensation will lie at the instance of the consumer only if there is deficiency in service. According to the Revision Petitioners the statutory protection to the Central Government which is in absolute terms stands as an exception to the general law relating to the commercial carriers, Post Office is a branch of public service functioning under a statute and the liability for misdelivery or late delivery of an article can be fastened on the postal department of its officers only on the basis of express provisions of the Post Office Act. The 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, imposed 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 common carrier.
We are of the opinion that both the claim petitions referred to above are not maintainable in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. As noticed earlier there is no allegation that the loss, misdelivery or delay occurred on account of fraudulent or willful act of any particular postal employee.”
7. The bear perusal of the aforesaid authorities makes it abundantly clear that the Postal Authority is exempted under section 6 as to any loss, misdelivery of postal articles. However, in the instant case the complainant has failed to lead any evidence with regard to misconduct or fraud on behalf of the O.P. It has come on record that the article of the complainant did not reach the destination an enquiry was held by the Postal Authority into the non-delivery of the article and in the end postal administration of England have authorized the Postal Department to compensate the sender of the article, accepting full liability as no track and trace was available at their end. Consequent upon that a sum of Rs.2,137/- being the fully liability equivalent to 30 SDR is sanctioned as per Article 29 of UPU Convention Rules by Circle office vide their Memo No.INV/19-8-79/2012 dated 18.12.2012. As per notification of Postal Authorities indicated above the complainant was entitled to the composite speed post charges and in case of loss of domestic speed post article shall be entitled to double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. The requisite amount was already offered to the complainant which he declined. However, as per the law point discussed above the complainant is not entitled to the compensation sought by way of this complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 10th day of February, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
