Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.
The complainant Manoj Kumar Panda has filed the present complaint U/s.12 of C.P.Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant is that on 03.05.2018 he has posted a registered letter bearing No.RO857853294IN at Head Post Office, Angul. The said letter returned to him after a long delay i.e on 26.06.2018. Due to such non-delivery of Regd. letter the complainant sustained a great loss in his business .It also caused mental agony to him. The letter could not be delivered to the addressee due to the gross negligence of the postal employees. Hence this complaint for damage of Rs.1,00,000.00 from the opp.parties.
3. Although on 14.08.2018 the opp.party No. 2 himself filed a show cause on 01.12.2018 the Learned A.G appeared on behalf of both the opp.parties and filed the written statement, being signed by Sri Bipini Bihari Mohanty, Superintendent of Post Offices, Dhenkanal Division, Dhenkanal.
4. The case of the opp.parties is that the complainant has registered a letter on 03.05.2018 at Angul head Post Office. The article was bagged to the Dhenkanal Railway mail service on the same day for onward transmission. The said article was received by the delivery office on 08.05.2018 and attempt was made to deliver the article to the addressee on the same day. As the house was locked it could not be delivered on the same day and retained for making efforts for delivery on subsequent dates. After several attempts the article could not be delivered, for which it was returned to the complainant with a remark door locked. Annexure- A1 is the tracking report .On 21.05.2018 the letter was received at Dhenkanal but due to strike all over India from 22.05.2018 to 06.06.2018 the said article was received by the sub-Post Master, Rengali Dam site on 11.06.2018 .During strike period there was huge accumulation of mails and the transmission and the delivery of all kind of articles including all type of postal services were hampered. Finally on 07.06.2018 the employees joined in their service .In the above situation the letter was returned to Rengali branch office on 25.06.2018 and delivered to the complainant on the same day. There is no negligence at all on the part of the opp.parties . U/s. 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the Govt. shall not incurred any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery or delay of or damaged to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be under taken by the Central Govt. as here in after 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 wilful act or default. The case of the complainant be dismissed.
5. On perusal of the complaint petition filed by the complainant on 10.07.2018 before this Forum/ Commission it transpires that it is not supported with affidavit. He has filed the photo copy of the regd. letter received by him, after return by the postal authority. The original is not produced before this Forum/Commission for verification ,for which it is not possible to ascertain about the endorsements available on the envelope. The complainant has not produced any evidence in support of his claim. The complainant also did not appear before this Forum/Commission to participate in the hearing and argument .
6. On the other hand it is the specific plea of the opp.parties that the letter sent by the complainant could not be delivered to the addressee inspite of repeated attempt as the door of the addressee was locked. It is also the case of the opp.parties that the letter could not be returned to the complainant in time due to strike of the postal employees through out the nation. The Learned Counsel for the opp.parties also drew our attention to Section- 6 of The Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and also a decision of Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C,New Delhi passed Revision Petition No. 4567 of 2012 (against the order dtd. 13.07.2012 in Appeal No. 548 of 2012 of State Commission, Rajstan ) in the case of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Vrs. Dharmbir Harizon, Alwar vide order dtd. 11.09.2013. On perusal of the documents filed by the opp.parties and other materials placed by them during hearing it is clear that there is not even an iota of evidence that the delay was caused fraudulently or by will full act or default by postal employee . The complainant has not alleged that he was having bad blood with the officials of the Post office. The non-delivery of the articles in course of transmission by post is not contractual but purely statutory in nature. In the case i.e the Presidency of Post Master and another Vrs. Dr. Y. Shankar Rao in Revision Petition Nos. 175 of 2000 and 247 of 1992 decided on 15.04.1993 the Hon’ble Four Members of the bench was pleased to hold that “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 the article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges posed by the State for the enjoyment ,the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration at any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier”.
7. The similar view was also taken in a judgement passed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in Post Master,Imphal and others Vrs. Dr.Jamini Devi Sagolband,200(1) CLT 577.
8. By considering the aforesaid materials available before this Forum/Commission we are constrained to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.
9. Hence order :-
: O R D E R :
The case be and the same is dismissed on contest .
