DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.426/2017

Sh. D. K. Chopra                                                 (Senior Citizen)

AA-1039, New Delhi-110070                                  ….Complainant

Versus

Sr. Superintendent, Post

Chanakayapuri, New Delhi-110022

Post Master, Chanakayapuri,

New Delhi-110022

Post Master, NCERT

Katwaria Sarai, Hauz Khas,

New Delhi-110016                                                  ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        : 18.12.17              Date of Order                : 16.04.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Brief facts of the complaint as stated are:

1. The complainant D. K. Chopra sent total number of 476 letters through Speed Post.  The complainant sent 100 letters from Chanakyapuri post office on 01.11.17 and 376 letters from NCERT Katwaria Sarai Post Office on 02.11.17 to invite councilors for an event scheduled to be held on 08.11.17 on ‘Anti Bhrashtachar Day’.

1. To utter dismay and embarrassment of the complainant only 5 people came to attend the function which was chaired by Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission. It is alleged that due to the deficient services of the postal department the complainant had to face embarrassment. He had to run from pillar to post as one of the post offices refused to send bulk letters and offered to send only 15 letters out of 476 letters and the other post office agreed to send only 100 letters for speed post.

1. It is next alleged that out of the 476 letters it seems that certain letters were dispatched on 06.11.17 that is two days prior to the date of the function. It is further averred that the complainant incurred a loss of Rs.51,000/-, the expenses of organizing the function. The complainant had spent money and energy on booking the venue, transport, public banners etc. But only five people responded to the invitation of the complainant out of 476 invitations sent by speed post. Therefore to ascertain the reason for its failure the complainant sought the mobile number of the receivers as per record otherwise it is stated by the complainant that ‘it will be understood that these articles (letters) are thrown into dustbin or not delivered’. Aggrieved by the circumstances above, the complainant  approached the Forum with the following prayers:

1. Refund of Actual expenses incurred on the fuction were Rs. 51,000/- (Rupees fifty one thousand) only.
2. Compensation of only Rs. 19 lakhs (Rupees ninteen lakhs) be directed them to pay to the applicant.
3. Penalty and fine may also be imposed worth 10 crores at least to be deposited with the Consumer secretary for playing mischief with orther consumer so for.
4. Advocate fee Rs. 41,000/- may be also directed to payee.
5. They may also be directed to provide all information phase to phase to the applicant within weeks’s time.

2.  OP resisted the complaint inter-alia on the ground that the grievances of the complainant have already been redressed. It is submitted that on the complaint received by OP vide letter dated 13.11.17 it was confirmed from the post of NIE Campus Post Office and Chanakyapuri Post Office that articles in question had been dispatched to the next stage (NSH) Delhi on the same day (i.e. the date of booking) from the respective post offices except 14 post articles booking of which could not be confirmed. Accordingly a letter was sent to the complainant on 17.11.17 requesting him to furnish copies of booking receipts of those 14 articles to confirm the correct article numbers.  The complainant in response sent another letter on 22.11.17 asking for detailed information (date of receipt at destination post office and delivery date and time as well as receiver mobile no./email/landline no.) in respect of each article.

1. As per the request of the complainant the date of delivery and name of delivery post office in respect of 102 articles were furnished to the complainant alongwith copies of postman’s delivery slips obtained from the respective delivery post offices. It is next submitted by SSPOs, Delhi East Division that speed post articles are address specific and not addressee specific hence it can be delivered to any person residing in the premises by taking signature of the recipient who may or may not put mobile number on the delivery slip.   The complainant was further informed that as per web tracking report obtained from the website www.indianpost.govt.in both the articles related to Delhi East Division had been delivered to their addressees.  Similar replies were received by all concerned Postal Divisions of Delhi Circle.

1. It is next submitted that all the articles which were got booked by the complainant were duly dispatched and found to have been delivered through various delivery post office across Delhi. Therefore it is prayed that the complaint being misconceived it should be dismissed with exemplary costs.

3. Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint. 

4. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar, Senior Superintendent, Post Office has been filed on behalf of OP.
5. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. 

6. Arguments on behalf of the complainant are heard and material placed on record is perused.

7. Complainant has relied upon Post Master General & Anr. Vs. Manoj Kumar,  R. P. No.2845 of 2017, decided by National Commission on 11.10.2017 and Post Office Vs. Akhilesh Grover, R. P. No.1279 of 2016, decided by National Commission on 06.10.2017.  Reliance on the judgments above is misplaced as in both the cases complainants’ application form was not received by the concerned authorities in time and complainants were deprived of an opportunity to sit for a competitive exam which hampered their career prospects.    

8. Whereas study of track report placed on record reveals that majority of the articles sent by the complainant, were received at the destined address before the date of the event organized. Even from those who had received the communication, just few attended the function which indicates that the attendance was thin for the reasons other than OP’s service.  If the addressee had approached the Forum and claimed that they were deprived of the opportunity to attend the ‘Anti-Bharastachar Programme’ the genuineness of the grievance could be accepted.

9. Moreover, in case of bulk posts the adequacy or the inadequacy of the staff shall also have to be considered. Probably this was the reason why certain post offices refused to send bulk speed post. Further OP has placed its reliance on the Post Master, Imphal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband Revision Petition No.986 of 1996. Allowing the revision petition, the Five-Members Bench of this Commission inter-alia 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 in so far 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 wilful act of default. There are some provisions in the Act where specifically Government has been made liable to pay compensation for the lost postal articles. For Example, Section 33 categorically says that subject to such conditions and restrictions, Central Government shall be liable to paycompensation for insured postal article. But where there is no such specific provision in the Act for payment of compensation, Section 6 grants complete immunity to the Government for liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to the postal articles. The second part of Section 6 deals with individual liability of the Postal employees but states that 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 wilful act or default. In this case there is no allegation that that the Post Master or the Director or the Director General was guilty of fraud or wilful act or wilful default which led to non-delivery of the postal article. An officer of the post office may be held liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage if it can be proved that he has caused such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage by some fraudulent act or wilful act or default. In other words, the person who has committed the offence can be sued for damage but no action will lie against either the Central Government or any of its officers vicariously for the wilful act or default of the dealing clerk or postal peon.”

Therefore, as delay in delivery of some articles was neither fraudulent nor wilful act or wilful default on the part of postal employees, as such there was no deficiency of service.

10. For the reasons stated hereinabove complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 16.04.19