DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.85/25.06.2008 Decided on : 30.01.2009 1.Yatendra Singh S/o Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, Resident of Budhlada (LADM DAV Public School, Near New Telephone Exchange, Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.Yogendra Singh S/o Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, resident of Nasaratpur, P.O. Nadari, Tehsil Kaskanj, District Etah (UP) Now Kansi Ram Nagar. ..... Complainants. VERSUS 1.The Sub Post Master, Post Office, Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.The Superintendent, Post Office, Bathinda. 3.The Post Master, Post Office, Kaskanj District, District Etah (U.P.) Now Kansi Ram Nagar. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Zanny Kath, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.B.D.Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Yatendra Singh and his brother Yogendra Singh sons of Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, Resident of Budhlada and village Nasaratpur, District Etah, (UP), against the Sub Post Master, Budhlada, and other postal authorities, under Section 12 of the Consumer Contd........2 : 2 : Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may briefly be described as under:- That complainant No.1 is a teacher by profession, and is employed, with LADM DAV Public School, Budhlada as teacher of mathematics. The complainant No.2, delivered a parcel, on 5.5.2008 , through registered post, at Post Office Kasganj District Etah. The said parcel contained roll number of complainant No.1, for appearance, in examination, for the post of P.G.T. at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, scheduled to be held on 12.5.2008 at Shivalik Public School, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh at 9 A.M. He also paid charges of speed post for which OP No.3 issued a receipt, as such, he is consumer within its definition given in the Act, qua the said parcel and this Forum, has jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint. In the ordinary course, the speed post sent through registered letter, should have reached Complainant No.1, within a period of 24 hours, but it was delivered to him at 1.40 P.M. on 12.5.2008, because of which he could not take on his examination, at the stipulated time, date and place. After complainant No.2, informed complainant No.1, on telephone about the dispatch of his roll number, he approached the OP No.1, who advised him to approach the OP No.2 at Mansa at 3 P.M. on 9.5.2008. The postal officials posted at Mansa, informed complainant No.1, that they have sent back the parcel to OP No.1, for delivery thereof at Budhlada. The complainant then approached OP No.2 at 11 A.M. on 10.5.2008, but the postal officials posted there, told him that parcel, has been sent by OP No.1, at the address given, but they gave no satisfactory explanation, as such, the officials of the opposite parties were not only deficient in service, but also negligent in performance of their duties. The posts of mathematics teachers in Kendriya Vidyalayas were created five years ago. At that time complainant No.1 was about 36 years and was eligible to compete for the said post upto attaining of age of 40 years, but, he has lost valuable chance for securing the job of mathematics teacher due to the conduct of the Contd........3 : 3 : officials of the opposite parties. At the end a prayer, has been made, that the opposite parties be directed, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, as compensation, to complainant No.1, with interest,@ 10 % per annum w.e.f. 5.5.2008 till the date of payment. Hence the complaint. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainants, have no locus standi and cause of action, to file the complaint as there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties; that the complainants, are not consumers, of opposite parties, within its definition, given in the Act; that complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed and is not maintainable in view of the bar imposed by section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and liability cannot be imposed on the concerned postal authorities for loss of a postal article beyond Rs.100/-. On merits, it is admitted that speed post No.EU-1080691881-N was sent by Complainant No.2 on 5.5.2008 from Post Office Kasganj, but it has submitted that complainants do not fall in the ambit of its definition of 'consumer' given in the Act. It is contended that the above said parcel, was consigned by the booking office and was entered in SPC list dated 5.5.2008 sent to Ludhiana RMS and was ultimately delivered to the addressee on 12.5.2008. It is also submitted, that after parcel was entrusted, to SPC, Mansa, by SPC, Ludhiana, same was entered at Sr.No.43/59 on 9.5.2008, but sent back to NSPC, Bathinda on the same day vide entry made at Sr.No.15/49 for sending to the addressee at the address given. It is contended that NSPC, Bathinda entrusted the parcel to Post Office, Budhlada for delivery to the addressee on 10.5.2008 but 11.5.2008 was general holiday on account of Sunday, as such, there was no delay on the part of the opposite parties or its officials, in delivery of the parcel. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. Contd........4 : 4 : On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the complainant No.1, Yatendra Singh, furnished his affidavit, Exhibit C-1. The learned counsel for the complainants tendered in evidence copies of the postal covers and roll number slip of complainant No.1, Ext.C-2 and C-3. He also tendered postal receipt Ext.C-4 issued by the opposite parties before he closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, Sh.Gurdial Singh, Sub Post Master, Budhlada, tendered his affidavit Ext.OP-1 and their counsel closed the evidence. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them , carefully, with their kind assistance. Admittedly, registered speed post parcel, was delivered by Complainant No.2, at Post Office Kasganj, District Etah on 5.5.2008. The said postal article, was addressed, to complainant No.1, who is his real brother for delivery at his address at Budhlada. As per affidavit Ext.C-1 furnished by complainant No.1, the said speed post parcel contained his roll number, Ext.C-3, for appearance in interview on 12.5.2008, at Shivalik Public School, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh for the post of teacher of mathematics, in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. As per the date sheet given in Ext.C-3, the Complainant No.1 was required to take on paper No.1 at 9 A.M on 12.5.2008 at Chandigarh. The complainant No.2, has paid the speed post charges as evident from copy of receipt Ext.C-4 placed on record by the complainants, as such, he is consumer, under the opposite parties, so far as, speed post sent by him, to Complainant No.1, is concerned. It is not disputed, by the opposite parties, in their written version, that postal cover was sent by complainant No.2, to complainant No.1, from Etah in Uttar Pradesh and was delivered at his residential address at Budhlada in District Mansa (Punjab). The plea of the opposite parties is that delay, has taken place, in the delivery of the postal article, in transit, because of general holiday, on 11.05.2008, on account of Sunday. Contd........5 : 5 : As per our opinion, the said plea is not sustainable, because in ordinary course, speed post is supposed to reach its destination, within a period of 72 hours, after its delivery, provided it is properly addressed. The opposite parties, have not taken any plea that address of complainant No.1, mentioned on postal cover, was not correct or that he was not present at his residence, at the time of visit of Postman, or he refused, to accept the same. In the copy of postal cover Ext.C-3, address of complainant No.1, is correctly mentioned, as given in the head note of the complaint. Therefore, we have no option, but to hold that there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, in delivery of the speed post parcel, to complainant No.1, who could not take on examination, at the stipulated time, date and place, due to late delivery, of the speed post containing his roll number slip. In view of the admitted and proved act, much significance, cannot be attached to the affidavit Ext.OP-1, furnished by Sh.Gurdial Singh, Sub Post Master, Budhlada, Learned counsel for the complainants, Sh. Zanny Kath, Advocate, has further argued, that due to deficiency in service and negligence, on the part of the officials of the opposite parties, complainant No.1, has lost golden chance to compete for the post of a teacher of mathematics and there is no possibility, in near future, that fresh posts would be advertised by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, as such, he has suffered mental and physical harassment and deserves to be suitably compensated, on that score and the opposite parties, are liable to compensate him, for mental and physical harassment and for the costs incurred for filing the instant complaint. On the other hand, at the out set, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh.B.D.Jindal, Advocate, has, submitted that as per provisions, of Section 6, of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, liability cannot be fastened, upon the Government, on account of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article, in course of transit, except when Contd........6 : 6 : there is express agreement, with the person, entrusting the article for delivery. Learned counsel argued that under the said provision, even no officer of the Post Office may be fastened liability, on such grounds unless he has caused fraudulent or wilful act or default. Learned counsel, has argued, that as per the provisions of Clause 163, of the Guidelines issued, by the Postal Department and Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, Rule 66B framed thereunder, liability of the Post Office, is only limited, to the extent of Rs.100/-, even if, this Forum, comes to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, although delay has taken place in normal course taken in transit because of holiday which fell on 11.5.2008, because of Sunday . In support of his contentions, learned counsel, has placed reliance upon 2007(I) CPC NC 297 Union of India & Ors. Versus R.C.Puri, wherein the complainant, sent blood test report of his wife through post, for delivery of which, delay was caused, because of which he alleged, harassment stating that his wife, could not be properly treated, by the doctor, in time and he filed the complaint, in the Consumer Forum, for grant of compensation. The District Forum awarded, compensation, in the sum of rupees 4 lacs, for deficiency in services and its order, was upheld, by the Hon'ble State Commission. In Revision Petition, preferred by the opposite parties, impugned order, was set aside and it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission, that respondent, is entitled, to payment of compensation only equal to composite speed post charges paid by him and complainant was directed, to refund the amount of rupees 4 lacs, minus compensation equal to composite speed post charges. The verdict has been given in this authority in terms of provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and Rule 66B framed thereunder. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and rules framed thereunder cannot be enforced, by the postal authorities, for depriving the person who has sent the postal article of his right to claim for Contd........7 : 7 : compensation, for the loss of the same in transit and liability of the Government and the Postal Authorities is unlimited. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2006(2) CPC 275 Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Sohna & Anr. versus M/s Bharat Kiryana Store wherein speed post containing two bank drafts was delivered, in the post office on 19.6.1999, but they were not delivered to the addressee till 30.6.1999. The opposite party took the plea that complaint is barred by Section 6 of the Post Office Act. It was held by the U.T. Commission that as per provisions of Section 3 of the Act, provisions of Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law and granted a sum of Rs.5,000/-, including transportation charges, compensation and costs of litigation by upholding the verdict delivered by the District Consumer Forum. Learned counsel, has further relied upon 2004(1) CPC Supreme Court 179, Secretary Thirumurugan Coop. Agricultural Credit Society versus M. Lalitha (Dead) through L.Rs. and others, wherein it has been held, that jurisdiction of all courts including Consumer Foru,m is not excluded by Tamil Nadu Coop.Societies Act, 1983 as remedy under the Act, is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law and case was remanded back, to the State Commission to decide the matter, on merits keeping in view the object and scope of Consumer Protection Act. We find merit in the argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 provided as under: '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 by 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, Contd........8 : 8 : misdelivery, delay or damages, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.' The bare perusal of the above said provisions goes to show, that in case of loss, of any postal article, in transit, liability cannot be fastened, on the Government, or any officer, of the post office, for loss, misdelivery, delay or damages, unless he, has caused any such act fraudulently or by his wilful act or default until there is express contract to the contrary between the person who sent the postal article and the authorities concerned. In view of the above said bar imposed, by the legislature, under Section 6, of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act and rules framed thereunder and Clause 163 of the guidelines, issued by the Postal Department, on the subject, liability of the post office and its officers, is restricted, to the extent of Rs.100/-, irrespective of the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant, unless he pleads and proves, that postal article has been lost in transit or delay has been caused in delivery thereof due to fraudulent, wilful act or default. In this regard, reference may be made to 1997(2) CLT Pb. 66 Union of India and others versus Ramesh Kumar Khanna & Anr, wherein it, has been held, that District Forum directed the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-, to the complainant, for non delivery, of the registered letter, to the addressee. The order of the District Forum, was modified, by the Hon'ble State Commission, to the extent, that appellants would pay a sum of Rs.100/-, with interest, at the rate of 18 per cent, holding that liability of Post Office can be fastened, only on proof of fraudulent or wilful act or default as per provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, which complainant, has failed to prove. It is further held, that provisions of Clause 163, of the guidelines, issued by the Postal Department, liability of the Post Office, is only to be limited, to the extent of Rs.100/-. In view of the law laid down in the authority 2007(I) CPC NC Contd........9 : 9 : 297 Union of India & Ors. Versus R.C.Puri, (Supra), we have no hesitation in holding, that the liability of the postal officials, is restricted to the extent of Rs.100/-, for loss of ordinary postal article, in transit, as per provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, rules framed thereunder and clause 163 of the guidelines issued by the Postal Department, on the subject. The complainant, has failed to prove that there was some express contract between him or the postal authorities or that there was any wilful act or default on the part of the postal authorities. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2004(1) CPC Supreme Court 179, (Supra) reliance cannot be placed on 2006(2) CPC 275 (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainants. In 2004(1) CPC Supreme Court 179, (Supra) , the controversy pertained to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to entertain and try the complaint and not about the extent of liability unlike the case in hand. Therefore, ratio of judgment delivered in the said authority by the Hon'ble Apex Court also does not advance the case of the complainant, so far as, extent of compensation sought by him, is concerned, for delay in delivery of the speed post parcel, containing the roll number of complainant No.1. In the light of our above discussions, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.100/- including the amount of Rs.25/- spent by them as postal charges on speed post on account of compensation to Complainant No.2. They are also directed to pay interest at the rate of 9 percent from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. The opposite parties are also burdened, in the sum of Rs.500/-, as costs of filing the complaint, to compensate the complainant No.2. The above said payment be made by the opposite parties, within a period of two months, from the receipt of the copy of this order. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of Contd......10 : 10 : costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 30.01.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
