DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 278/2016

No. DC/ Central/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1. Sh.  Sunil Kumar Tiwari (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Chief Post Master General (in short OP) pleading therein that daughter of the complainant is 65% permanently disabled. She qualified for admission as per merit list prepared by Delhi University. Her original certificate was at her native place at Bihar. On 08.07.2016 her original 10+2 certificate was sent by her close relative to Delhi through Speed Post vide no. EF6791827451N. On 13.07.2016 complainant enquired about the delivery of said speed post from the concerned post office and he was informed that it was already delivered. Complainant tracked the delivery report and found that it was showed delivered on 11.07.2016 as per electronic tracking report.

Complainant visited Karol Bagh Post office. Post office official showed him a slip/ document bearing signatures of the person who allegedly received the booked item. The signatures are forged. Accordingly complainant sent a complaint dated 17.06.2016 to the Head Post Master in this regard. Complainant has prayed for direction to the Chief Post Master General(OP) to return 10+2 certificate of the daughter of the complainant, compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for causing harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 11,000/-.

2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP who filed Reply. It is pleaded therein that present complaint is not maintainable in view of the fact that speed post article was delivered by Karol Bagh post office upon the complainant through Mr. Satpal Singh area post master. It is further submitted that the said article was received by a relative of the complainant, namely, Mr. Tejpal Tiwari against proper acknowledgement on 11.07.2016. As such it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
3. Both sides filed evidence by way of affidavits. They also filed Written Submissions. We have perused the material available on record. We have also heard both sides.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OP has contended that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, OP is exempted from liability as provided under the aforesaid provision. It is contended that no evidence has been adduced by the complainant to show that loss/non-delivery, even if it is assumed, was caused due to any “fraudulent or willful act or default” on the part of the OP.
5. Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, reads as under:

“6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage- the Government Department shall not incur any liability by reason for the loss, mis-delivery, or delay of damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the central government and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of such loss, mis-delivery, or delay or damages unless he has caused the same in fraudulent manner or by his willful act or default.”

6. In Union of India vs. Mohd. Nazim reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 431, Hon’ble Apex Court held:-

“These are only some of the provisions of the Act which seem to indicate that the post office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of the sender of the postal article for reaching it to the addressee. It is really a branch of the public service providing postal services subject to the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act and the rules made thereunder. The law relating to the post office in England is not very much different from that in this country. In Triefus & Co. Ltd. v. Post Office the court of appeal held that the post office is a branch of revenue and the Post Master General does not enter into any contract with a person who entrusts to the post office a postal packet for transmission overseas. This decision approves the observations of Lord Mansfield in Whitfield v. Lord Le Despencer. In the course of his judgment, Lord Mansfield said: “The Post Master has no hire, enters into no contract, carries on no merchandise or commerce. But the post office is a branch of revenue, and a branch of police, created by Act of Parliament. As a branch of revenue, there are great receipts; but there is likewise a great surplus of benefit and advantage to the public, arising from the fund. As a branch of police it puts the whole correspondence of the Kingdom (for the exceptions are very trifling) under government, and entrusts the management and direction of it to the crown, and officers appointed by the crown. There is no analogy therefore between the case of the Post Master and a common carrier.”

7. The National Commission in the case of The Presidency Post Master and another v. Dr. U. Shankar Rao, reported in II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC), decided by Four Member Bench held as under:

“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 are in the nature of charges imposed 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 cannot be equated with a common carrier.”

8. In Post Master, Imphal and others v. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband reported in 2000(1) CLT 577, decided by Five Members Bench of National Commission, it has been held as under:

“27. Therefore, in a number of cases this Commission has taken the view that no relief can be granted to a complainant on the mere allegation of loss or non-delivery of the postal article. 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 the loss of the postal article or non-delivery there-of. In the instant case the complaint has been made against the Postmaster and Director General of the Postal Service. There is no allegation of any fraud or willful act or default on the part of any one of the respondents. The complaint, therefore, must fail and be dismissed.

28. Our attention was drawn to the fact that in some cases a view contrary to the decisions referred to hereinabove has been taken by this Commission. Those cases were decided on their peculiar facts and the earlier decisions of this Commission referred to hereinabove as well as the decision of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court were not cited before the Commission. The law is well settled by a long line of decisions of the English Courts, the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts as well as the National Commission itself that Section 6 gives complete immunity to the Government and its employees except in the cases specified therein. We see no reason to depart from this well established principle.

9. Rule 170 of the Post Office Guide Rules reads as under:-

“170. Compensation (1)

The Head of the Circle may grant to the sender, or at

his request to the addressee solely as an act of grace, and not in consequence of any legal liability compensation upto a limit of Rs. 50 for the loss of any inland letter, packet, packet or parcel, or its contents or for any damage caused to it in course of transmission by post, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the prescribed registration fee shall have ben prepaid in addition to the postage.
2. That the application for compensation shall have been made within three months of the date of posting of the article in the case of loss of the article, and within one month of the date of delivery of the article in the case of loss of contents or damage.
3. That the amount of compensation shall not exceed the actual amount of the loss or damage and that such amount can be referred directly to some loss or damage.
4. That the decision of the Director-General on all questions of compensation shall be final.”
   10. Rule 172 enables insurance of valuable letters and parcels upto Rs. 10,000/-. On a conjoint reading of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, along with Rule 170 extracted hereinabove, it is evident that only an ex-gratia amount can be paid by the Head of the Circle in case of loss of a parcel and no compensation based upon the value of the parcel is payable unless the parcel is duly insured in terms of Rule 172, in which case, the value of the insured article is to be restricted to Rs. 10,000/-.
   11. The complainant had not got his parcel insured at the time it was delivered to the post office for carrying to the place of destination. There is no evidence placed on record by the complainant that the loss, if any, was caused fraudulently or the postman’s willful act or default. In fact OP has shown the article delivered. There is nothing on record to indicate that post office had any motive to manipulate delivery of the article as alleged by the complainant. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
   12. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 12^th September of 2022.