Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> ORDER ON MAINTAINBILITY<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant – “Mysore Medical College Alumni Association, Mysore” is a registered Association, which has filed this complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, claiming refund of Rs.6,856/- apart from damages of Rs.10,000/-, and cost on the ground of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. When the complaint was taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the complainant was present, and heard on maintainability.<br /> <br /> 3. We have carefully gone through the complaint, affidavit, and documents produced by the complainant. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-<br /> <br /> Complainant is a registered association. The Annual General Body Meeting of the year 2004-05 was fixed on 11-12-05 at 11.00 am at Platinum Jubilee Auditorium, J.K.Grouond, Mysore. The complainant has to send letter of invitations, which includes the notice of election, and nomination papers to it’s members. It is further contended that complainant has sent by “Book post” 1170 invitations. These invitations were sent in two batches as under:-<br /> <br /> a) The 1st batch of 1013 invitations were sent on 19-11-05. The complainant had taken these invitations to the office of the O.P., paid an amount of Rs.4,204/- towards the franking charges at the rate of Rs.4/- each. The O.P. has issued receipt no.1653 dated 19-11-05.<br /> b) The 2nd batch of 157 invitations were taken to the office of O.P. and complainant has paid an amount of Rs.652/- at the rate of Rs4/- each towards franking and the O.P. has issued receipt no.1658. <br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of complainant that subsequently, they came to know that some invitations were not delivered in time, some invitations were delivered late that after the date of election on 11-12-05. The complainant also came to know that some invitations were not at all delivered to the addressee. Such act of the O.P. amounts to deficiency in service, hence, complainant is entitled for refund of the amount along with cost and damages.<br /> <br /> 5. The two receipts produced by the complainant clearly discloses that the amount was received towards “mailing charges” (postal charges), that is postage for sending the articles by “ordinary post”. It is obvious that the articles were neither sent by RPAD nor sent by speed post with acknowledgements. The franking charges collected by the O.P. are towards “mailing charges”, and the services of O.P. was neither hired for delivery of the same with proper acknowledgement, or delivery of the same on or before 11-12-05. In this background, we have to see whether the complaint is maintainable in law.<br /> <br /> 6. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as under:-<br /> <br /> “Sn.6: “Exemption from liability for loss misdelivery, delay or damage. The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay 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.<br /> <br /> The section very clearly lays down that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to, to any postal article in transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as provided by statue. There are some provisions in the Act where specifically Government has been made liable to pay compensation for the lost postal article. For example section 33 categorically says that subject to such condition and restrictions Central Government shall be liable to pay compensation 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 article. <br /> <br /> 7. The National Commission has settled the issue relating to scope of section 6 of IPO Act in its land mark judgement in the case Postmaster imphal and others Vs. Dr.Jamini Devi Sago band {1992(2) CCC 157 (NC)}. The position that emerges from this judgement may be stated in nutshell as under:<br /> <br /> “Section 6 gives complete immunity to the Government and its employees except in the cases specified therein.<br /> No relief can be granted to a complainant on the mere allegation of loss of non delivery of the postal article.<br /> A postal employee may be made liable provided an action was brought against him and it was proved that he was guilty of fraud or willful act or default leading to loss of postal article or non-delivery thereof.<br /> If there is no allegation of any fraud or willful act or default on the part of any particular employee the complaint can not succeed.”<br /> <br /> 8. In this case, neither there is allegation of any fraud or willful act or default on the part of any particular employee of the O.P. nor there was any contractual obligation that the articles should be delivered on or before 11-12-05. In view of the above facts, this complaint is misconceived and not maintainable in law. Hence, following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed has not maintainable. <br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to the complainant.<br />