Haryana

StateCommission

A/546/2014

Union Bank Of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Bir - Opp.Party(s)

Namit Kumar

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

Appeal No.546 of 2014

Date of the Institution:27.06.2014

Date of Decision: 21.11.2016

 

1.      Union of India through Secretary, Post & Telegraph Department, New Delhi.

2.      The Director General Post Office, New Delhi.

3.      The Post Master, General Post Offices, Ambala (Haryana)

4.      The Superintendent Post Office, Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani.

5.      The Post Master, Post Office, Bhiwani.

6.      The Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Loharu, District Bhiwani.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

 

Rajbir son of Shri Jagdish, resident of Ward No.13, Old City Loharu, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.R.P. Singh, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                    None for the, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Union of India and others-opposite parties (for short ‘OP’) are in appeal against the Order dated 05.05.2014 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint of Rajbir Singh has been allowed by directing the OP to refund the registered postal charges paid by the complainant vide receipt bearing dated 30.03.2010 alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Briefly stated, according to the complainant Haryana Public Service Commission, Panchkula invited applications for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge and the last date for submitting the applications was 09.04.2010. The complainant after completing all the formalities sent the consignment consisting of application form and other required documents for the above said examination vide registered post dated 30.03.2010. He was informed by the Secretary of HPSC, Panchkula vide letter dated 30.04.2010 that his application was received on 20.04.2010 i.e. after closing date and the application was rejected due to late receipt. The complainant represented to the HPSC, but the same was declined on the ground that it was not responsible for any delay on the part of postal department or courier agency and all the applications received after the closing date were liable to be rejected. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming financial losses, compensation and litigation expenses against the OPs-Postal Authorities.

3.      Contesting the complaint, the OPs pleaded that as per instructions issued by the department, the liability of the Post office in the event of delay of domestic speed post articles is to the extent of refund of the Speed Post Charges paid by customer or Rs.1000/- which ever was less as the Indian Post office was exempted by law from all the responsibility in case of loss. Further, the complaint regarding non delivery were entertained within a period of one month from the date of booking of the article under the departmental rules. It was further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OPs and accepted the complaint vide order dated 05.05.2014 granting the aforesaid relief.

4.      Against the impugned order, the OPs/appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record.

5.      In fact, the law relating to dispatch of articles through the agency of post offices, their late delivery and loss in transit and compensation payable therefore, is more than 100 years old. The numerous cases have been dealt under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e. last 30 years. Consistent view of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission and the State Commissions in the country had been to award a nominal compensation as permissible under the Post Office Act and Rules made there under, and not as claimed by the Consumers in their claim petitions. One such case decided by the Hon’ble National Commission is Union of India and others versus M.L. Bora, 2011 CTJ 27 (CP) (NCDRC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

“7. Section 6 is in two parts. The first part deals with the liability of the Government and the second part deals with the individual liability of the postal employees. The first part of Section 6 absolves the Government of any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms undertaken by the Central Government as provided by the statue. Second part provides that no office of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Since, in the instant case, the complaint has been made against the Postal Authorities in general and there is no allegation of any fraud or willful act or default on the part of the any one of the respondents, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.”

6.      In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble National Commission, the appeal of the Postal Authorities deserves to be allowed and the complaint is hereby disposed of with a direction to the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.900/- in lump-sum  compensation in addition to Rs.25/- as expenses incurred by the OPs.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

November 21st, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.