Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/509/2016

Postmaster Genral Rajasthan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punita d/o Chhagan Lal Parsoya - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Sharma

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 507 /2016

 

Ranjeet Singh Shaktawat, Superintendent of Post Offices, Golpyau Chauraha, Bhilwara & ors.

Vs.

Shailendra Kumar Sharma r/o 14-16 Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara (deceased)

Smt.Kamla Devi & Mahendra Kumar Sharma r/o 14-16 Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:508/2016

 

Postmaster General Rajasthan Southern Region, Ajmer & ors.

Vs.

Shubham s/o Chhagan lal r/o 2F-16 New Housing Board, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 509/2016

 

Postmaster General Rajasthan Southern Region, Ajmer & ors.

2

Vs.

 

Punita d/o Chhagan lal r/o 2F-16 New Housing Board, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.

 

 

Date of Order 6.4.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr.Sandeep Saxena counsel for the appellants

Mr.Ajayraj Tantia counsel for complainant

Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma counsel for respondent in appeal no. 507/2016

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

All these appeals contain a common question of law hence, are decided by this common order.

 

The contention of the appellant is that looking at the

3

 

provisions of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act the appellants are exempted from liability as nothing has been brought on record that loss/delay is caused due to fraudulent or willful act or default of the appellants. Hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that in Appeal No. 508/2016 and 509/2016 the posts were never delivered to the consignee and in Appeal no. 507/2016 it was delivered after more than one month and no explanation has been furnished by the appellant for non-delivery or delayed delivery of the post. Hence, the default is proved on the face of it.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.Written arguments is also filed by the consumer in Appeal No. 507/2016.

 

There is no dispute about the facts that post/parcel was booked in the above matters and in Appeal No. 508/2016 and 509/2016 it were never delivered and in Appeal No. 507/2016 the parcel was delivered after more than a month and in reply to the petitions no explanation has been submitted for

4

 

the delay or loss. In Appeal No. 508/2016 and 509/2016 only this much has been stated that posts were handed to railway authorities and from where they were lost.

 

The appellant has relied upon section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and contended that without proof of willful act or default on the part of the appellant they cannot be made liable and reliance has been placed on I (1995) CPJ 61 (NC) Chief General Manager, MTNL Vs. Suresh Bhargav and judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 175/1992 Presidency Postmaster and anr. Vs. Dr.U.Shanker Rao and further reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4967/2008 where co-relation between section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act are being considered and view of the National Commission is that in view of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act remedy is barred before the Consumer Forum. Further strongly reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 2.2.99 passed by the National Commission full bench in Revision Petition No. 989/1996 Postmaster,Imphal Vs.

 

 

5

 

Dr.Jamini Devi where after considering the various judgments it has been held that section 6 gives complete immunity to the government and its employees.

 

The counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on 2005 AIR (SC) 752 Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Communty Vs. State of Maharashtra and 2002 AIR (SC) 296 Pradip Chandra Parija Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik where judicial discipline and hierarchy has been explained. There is no dispute about the prepositions laid down in the above matters.

 

Per contra the respondent has placed reliance on 2016 NCJ 40 (NC) Postmaster General, West Bengal Vs. Dipak Bangerjee decided on 2.7.2015 where after relying on the five member decision of the National Commission in Postmaster Ranipet Vs. Sh. N.B.Janakiraman 2001 (3) CPR 189 (NC) the National Commission was of the opinion in the matter of willful act or default the compensation could be awarded by the Consumer Forums and it was held that section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act is being in pari materia with section 48 (c) of the Indian Post Office Act and it has been further explained that

 

6

 

once it has been shown that there is a probability that there is a willful default on the part of employees of the postal department the onus would shift on the said department to prove its denial and para no. 16 could be referred as under:

 

“ In order to give effect to the said objective of the Act, in our view if an addressee of the letter is able to create a responsible degree of probability that there was willful default on the part of an employee of the postal department, the onus would shift on to the said department to discharge the onus to prove its denial, particularly when the addressee, the aggrieved party, does not have any access to the internal working of the post office.”

 

Here in the present case also nothing has been shown that why the posts were delivered late or never delivered. No circumstances has been brought on record which could show that there was no willful act or default on the part of any of its officers. Hence, when the post/parcel have been delivered late or never delivered to the consumer, it was deficiency on the part of the appellants and in view of the law laid down in Dipak Bangerjee where the judgment passed in Dr.Jamini Devi (supra) was also considered and explained, the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim.

7

 

Hence, in view of the above all these appeals have no merit and liable to be rejected.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm