Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/105

POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESHCHANDRA GANGLEY - Opp.Party(s)

SH.RAJEEV JAIN

28 Jul 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                          

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 20.12.2016 passed in C.C.No.59/2016 by District Commission, Chhatarpur)

 

1. POST MASTER,

    POST OFFICE-NAUGAON, TEHSIL-NAUGAON,

    DISTRICT-CHHATARPUR (M.P.)

 

2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,

    HOSHANGABAD ROAD, ARERA HILLS,

    BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                                        … APPELLANTS.

 

                       Versus

 

SURESHCHANDRA GANGELE,

S/O LATE SHRI SHANKARLAL GANGELE,    

R/O RIDHI-SIDHI NIWAS, DULHA BABA ROAD,

NAUGAON, DISTRICT-CHHATARPUR (M.P.)                                                           … RESPONDENT.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Ms. Shaily Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.

           None for the respondent.

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on  28.07.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellants’) is directed against the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhatarpur (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.59/2016, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’).

 

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the respondent on 27.02.2016 had booked a postal article to be delivered through speed post to Mumbai.  The article contained homeopathic and allopathic medicines and the respondent had booked the same after payment of Rs.46/- to the appellant no.1 post office. The respondent on 03.03.2016 got to know that the subject article was not delivered to its destination. Due to non-delivery of the medicines, the respondent’s son-in-law had to undergo surgery for ‘fissure’ at Nagpur and Rs.33,762.75/- were spent in his treatment. The respondent therefore alleging deficiency in service on appellants’ part, filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking Rs.46/- i.e. speed post charges, Rs.800/- as cost of medicines, Rs.33,762/- towards expenditure incurred in the treatment of his son-in-law, along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-

3.                The appellants-post office before the District Commission resisted the complaint on the ground that the post office was not informed regarding contents of the postal article.  No assurance regarding timely delivery of the postal article was given to the respondent.  It is further stated that the post office is not liable to pay any compensation as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The alleged act was not caused willfully or fraudulently by the post office. Therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  

-3-

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay Rs.46/- as postal charges, Rs.800/- as cost of the medicines, with Rs.2,000/- towards compensation within a period of one month from the date of order, failing which the entire aforesaid amount is directed to be paid with interest @ 9% p.a. Additionally, costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded.

5.                Heard.  Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellants-post office argued that the Government and the Government Officers, by Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act as well as Clause 81 of the Post Office guide are exempted from all the responsibilities in case of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. She further argued that an express provision has been made in Rule 66B with regard to speed post and thus the compensation to be provided, be restricted by the amended provision in Rule 66B. Therefore, she argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. She placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission in Post Master, Imphal Vs Jamini Devi Sagolband 2000 NCJ 142, Chief Post Master General & Anr Vs Babu Lal Saini III (2018) CPJ 149 (NC) and the decisions of this Commission in Appeal No.2452/2006 (Up-Dakpal, Up-Dakghar, Jeerapur & Anr Vs Hemant Agrawal) decided on 24^th November, 2009 and in First Appeal No.548

-4-

of 2015 (Chief Post Master, Main Post Office, Katni Vs Rita Singh) decided on 21.09.2022.

7.                The respondent has filed written arguments wherein it is stated that it was responsibility of the appellants to send the booked postal article to its destination, by not doing so, the appellants have resorted to unfair trade practice.  It is further stated that the National Commission and the State Commission in their various judgments have held that there is no applicability of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act in the matters pertaining to speed post.  It is thereby submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

8.                In order to appreciate the appellants’ contention it is important to have a look at the relevant provisions of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898. Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898, provides as under –

“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 insofar 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudently or by his wilful act or default”

 

9.                Pursuant to ‘Section 21’ of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898, ‘Indian Post Office Rules’, 1933 were framed. By amendment of the Statutory Rules in 1986, Rule 66B, relating to ‘Speed Post’ was introduced, and vide

 

-5-

amendment in 1999, condition no 5 in rule 66B was inserted which reads as under  -

“ In case of any delay of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the Department of Post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charge paid.

In the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/- whichever is less.

 

10.              It is apparently clear from the above mentioned provisions as also from the above referred judgments that these cases are governed by Section 6 of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898 and Rule 66B. No fraudulent or wilful act or default is established on appellants’ part in the instant matter. Upon receiving complaint from the respondent, the appellants have also acted in a responsive manner.

11.              In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is therefore set-aside.  The respondent is entitled for amount in accordance with Rule 66B only.

12.              This appeal is accordingly disposed of with directions as aforesaid. No order as to costs.

 

      (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)       (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                        PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER