BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.702-13

Date of Institution:17-10-2013

Date of Decision:01-04-2015  

Gaurav Sharma son of Sh.Kamal Krishan Sharma, resident of H.No.2062/12, Kucha Dai Khana, Katra Sher Singh, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Court Road, Opposite Rialto Cinema, Amritsar.
2. The Post Master, Kairon Market Post Office, Amritsar.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.S.K.Sharma, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Rajinder Nayyar, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Gaurav Sharma under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant sent his application  to the Army Authorities for employment and sent the requisite application form alongwith his qualification documents to Army Authorities through registered post alongwith envelop of self address with postal tickets against the postal receipt dated 8.4.2013 which was to be delivered to the Commander T.A.Group H.Q. Western Command, Building No.750, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh. The complainant had started doing preparation of written test etc and had devoted full time for a long period thereby closing his job/ profession which he was doing. The complainant was very much sure of his success in his written test as well as physical test. Complainant alleges that he did not receive any letter from the Army Authorities regarding his written test or his roll number for sufficiently long period. However, to his astonishment and bad luck, the complainant received a letter on 30^th August, 2013 from the Army Authorities bearing his Roll No. 551, dated 18.7.2013 i.e. Call up notice Territorial Army Commission Preliminary Interview Board, allotting the said roll number to him that written test for the post will be held on 18.8.2013 at 1000 hours at Army Public School, Chandimandir. Said letter was posted on 26.7.2013, whereas it was delivered to the complainant by the postal authorities/ Opposite Parties on 30.8.2013 meaning thereby that the stipulated dated 18.8.2013 for the test, had already expired and the complainant was deprived of appearing and giving written test on the fixed date, which was only due to the great negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony, harassment, depression and tension suffered by him at their hands on account of deficiency in service on their part, alongwith Rs.10,000/- a costs of proceedings.  
2. On notice, Opposite Parties  and filed written version in which it was submitted that the address of the complainant on the envelop  was written by  the complainant himself. The complainant has not mentioned the name of delivery of post office in his address. The PIN Code mentioned in the address pertaining to Amritsar GPO, but as per the address noted on the address, the article in question was to be delivered through Gandhi Bazaar Post Office with PIN Code 143006. As such, there is no delay i.e. due to the acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the complainant. The complainant has intentionally not submitted the backside of the envelop in question from where the sender particulars will be verified. However, from the documents submitted by the complainant, it can not be established that the said envelop was sent to the complainant by Commandant, TA Group Headquarter, Western Command Building No.750, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh-160018. Moreover, the services rendered by the Post Office  are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. In establishing the post offices and running the postal services, the central government performs a government function and the government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of article through post and the charges for the articles transmitted by the post is in the nature of charges posed 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 can not be equated with the common carrier. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.B.R.Nanatagi, Senior Superintendent of Post Office Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith document Ex.OP1,2/2 and  closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant sent his application  to the Army Authorities for employment and sent the requisite application form alongwith his qualification documents to Army Authorities through registered post alongwith envelop of self address with postal tickets against the postal receipt dated 8.4.2013. Said envelop was delivered to the Commander T.A.Group H.Q. Western Command, Building No.750, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh. The complainant started doing preparation of written test, but the complainant did not receive any letter from Army Authorities regarding the written test  or his roll number for sufficiently long period. The  complainant received a letter on 30^th August, 2013 from the Army Authorities bearing his Roll No. 551, dated 18.7.2013 i.e. Call up notice Territorial Army Commission Preliminary Interview Board, allotting the said roll number to him that written test for the post will be held on 18.8.2013 at 1000 hours at Army Public School, Chandimandir. Said letter was posted on 26.7.2013, whereas it was delivered to the complainant by the postal authorities/ Opposite Parties on 30.8.2013 meaning thereby that the stipulated dated 18.8.2013 for the test, had already expired and the complainant was deprived of appearing and giving written test on the fixed date i.e. on 18.8.2013 and all this happened due to the  negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties  is that the  address on the envelop  was written by the complainant himself and he had  mentioned PIN Code  No.143001  which was of Amritsar GPO, but as per the address noted on the address, the article in question was to be delivered through Gandhi Bazaar Post Office with PIN Code 143006. As such, there is no delay, if any, due to the  acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the complainant. From the documents submitted by the complainant, it can not be established that the said envelop was sent to the complainant by Commandant, TA Group Headquarter, Western Command Building No.750, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh-160018. Moreover, the services rendered by the Post Office  are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. Opposite Parties  further alleged that the post office can not be equated with a common carrier. As such, as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the postal department or any officer of the post office shall not incur any liability  by reason of any such loss,  mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Opposite Parties  further submitted that the complainant has neither alleged any fraud or willful act or default on the part of the officers of the Post Office. So, the Opposite Parties  are not liable for any delay in delivery of the envelop to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. From the entire above discussion particularly from the provisions of section  6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, it is clear that the post office/ officers of the Post Office are exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of any post/ envelop. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 provides as under:

“6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage:-The government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery 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 te Central Government as hereinafter provided and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

9.       It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case: Post Master, Imphal and others Vs.Dr.Jamini Devi Sagolband, 2000(1) CLT 577 that 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 article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges posted by the State for the payment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office can not be equated with a common carrier.

10.     So, from the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the Post Office and the officers of the Post Office are exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any article in transit as per section  6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Moreover, the services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability as held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case : Post Master, Imphal and others Vs.Dr.Jamini Devi Sagolband, 2000(1)CLT 577 (supra).

11.     Therefore, the Post Office i.e. Opposite Parties can not be held liable for any delay in the delivery of envelop by postal authorities. Consequently, we hold that the  present complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 01-04-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                          Member