Haryana

StateCommission

A/497/2016

SENIOR SUPERINTENDER OF POST OFFICES - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

G.C.BABBAR

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        497 of 2016

Date of Institution:        01.06.2016

Date of Decision :         26.10.2016

 

 

 

1.     Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala.

 

3.     Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hisar.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Rajbir Singh son of Sh. Ishwar Singh, resident of Village Sultanpur, Post Office Kakru, Tehsil and District Ambala.

                                      Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri G.C. Babbar, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Sandeep Kashyap, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated May 06^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Raj Singh-complainant was allowed.  The appellants were directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

2.      Complainant applied for the post of Sanitary Inspector in Guru Jambeshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar.  The interview was to be held on June 29^th, 2011.  The complainant could not appear in the interview because the appellants delivered the call letter dated June 17^th, 2011 on July 01^st, 2011 to the complainant, that is, after the date of interview.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.  

3.      The appellants, in their written version, pleaded that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (for short ‘Section 6 of the Act, 1898), exempts Post Office from any liability for loss, misdelivery, 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 be undertaken by the Central Government. Denying other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellants urged 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 to any Postal article in the course of transmission by the Postal Department unless the same has been caused fraudulently by the officer of the Post Office or by his willful act or any default.  In support, reference was made to Section 6 of the Act, 1898, reproduced as under:-

“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 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.”

5.      A perusal of Section 6 of the Act, 1898 makes it clear that the claim for compensation will lie at the instance of the Consumer only if consumer proves that delay was caused fraudulently or by willful act or by default by the officials of the post office. 

6.      In the case in hand the complainant has not levelled allegation against any specific official of the Department of Posts alleging that loss of the postal article was caused by the said employee with fraudulent intention or by willful act or default on his part. Insofar as the Government is concerned, Section 6 grants complete immunity to the Government of liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to the postal articles. The scope of Section 6 was considered comprehensively by a five Members’ Bench of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Post Master, Imphal & Ors. V. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, 1(2000) CPJ 28 (NC), wherein it was held as under:-

 “The Section very clearly lays down that 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 provided by the statute 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”.   

 

7.     Since the complainant has not raised allegation against any individual official and did not lead any evidence to prove that the loss was caused on account of fraud or willful act or by any default on the part of the postal officials, the appellants-opposite parties cannot be held liable to pay compensation. The District Forum fell in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

8.     In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.12,500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants-opposite parties against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 26.10.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

UK