State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Port Blair
Present : Justice P.N. Sinha, President
Shri Bimal Behari Chakravarty, Member
Appeal No. 2 of 2009
Shri Pradeep Ram, S/o Shri Kishen Ram,
R/o Dugnabad, Port Blair, District Andaman. …… Appellant
-Vs-
The Director, Directorate of Postal Service,
Under the PS, Aberdeen, Port Blair Tehsil …….. Respondent
JUDGEMENT
28.08.09
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Port Blair alleging deficiency of service by the Postal Authorities, Port Blair and claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,15,255/-. It was his allegation that on 26.01.08 seeing one advertisement in the Employment News for the post of Probationary Officer in the State Bank of India he collected necessary application form and Postal Order worth of Rs.250/- and after filling in the form sent it to the addressee at Mumbai by Ordinary Post affixing Postal Stamp of Rs.5/- on the envelope and posted the envelope at Aberdeen Post Office, Port Blair on 07.02.08. On 27.02.08 he came to know from his advocate friend Aman Kishen Lall that one letter was lying in the letter box of the Court Complex in the name of the appellant. The appellant thereafter came to the Court Complex and obtained the letter and was shocked after seeing the letter as it was the envelope which was dropped by him in the post office for sending the same to the addressee at Mumbai but, the said envelope was returned back to him without any service. As a result of such deficiency in service by the Postal Authorities he lost the opportunity of offering his candidature for the post of Probationary Officer in the State Bank of India. Accordingly, he claimed Rs.1,15,255/- as compensation for deficiency in services, mental agony, suffering etc.
The respondent as opposite party contested the complaint by filing Written Objection which was in fact parawise comments on the complaint. The respondent denied the allegations made by the appellant and contended inter-alia that as per Clause 164 of the Post Office Guide, Registration is obligatory for articles containing valuables like Bank Challan etc. but, the complainant sent it by Ordinary Post. It was further contended that no record is kept at Post Office regarding posting of ordinary article and hence, the stages of transmission of ordinary article cannot be ascertained. In accordance with Clause 81 of the Post Office Guide, Post Office is not responsible for misdelivery of postal article in course of transmission by Post and exempted by law from any responsibility. The appellant should have sent the envelope by Registered Post and not in such a causal way by ordinary post. The complaint is not maintainable and should be dismissed.
Before the District Consumer Redressal Forum two witnesses were examined on behalf of appellant including himself and documents were marked as exhibits 1 to 4. The respondent did not examine any witness and also did not tender any document as exhibit to support his contention. The District Consumer Redressal Forum after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties dismissed the complaint observing that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and Section 6 gives absolute protection to the Postal Authorities against any claim for damages on account of loss or misdelivery of postal article deposited for service by ordinary post.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of the District Forum, the appellant moved this Commission in this appeal. The appellant Mr.Pradeep Ram himself argued before us and contended that the District Forum was wrong in arriving at the conclusion that sufficient stamp was not affixed and weighment was not done to ascertain exact stamp. The District Consumer Redressal Forum was further wrong in making observation that the envelope was not posted under Certificate of Posting and as such no liability can be fixed on the Post Office. Mr. Ram contended that the State Bank of India instructed to send application form by ordinary post and as such he had no scope to send the envelope by Registered Post or through Certificate of Posting. Inside the envelope there was no Bank Challan and as such question of sending the envelope by Registered Post does not arise. Exhibit 4 is the said envelope and on it the address of the addressee was printed and there was no ground at all for its non-service. The Postal Authority of Andaman was clearly negligent and there was deficiency in service and he is entitled to compensation for his mental agony and for deficiency in service. In support of his contention Mr. Ram referred to the decision of the West Bengal, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioner reported in III (1999) CPJ 161.
Mr.D.Illango, the Ld.Advocate for the respondent canvassed before us that the envelope was not properly stamped and the extra cost of postal stamp could not be recovered as the addressee was printed a post box number. As no individual was the addressee and addressee was Post Box No., the postal department could not collect the extra cost of postal stamp. The sender also did not mention his home address on the envelope and mentioned only address of District Session Court Complex for which it could not be intimated to the sender that the envelope was not properly stamped. Mr. Illango also drew our attention to clauses 164 and 81 of the Post Office Guide and contended that in view of Clause 81, the Post Office is not responsible for misdelivery of postal article in course of transmission by post and exempted by law from any responsibility. He further submitted that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act lays down that the Government does not incur any liability for the loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post. He also contended that the decision of the larger bench of the National Commission referred to by the District Forum in their judgement is binding in this matter and is also binding on the State Commission as well as District Forum. In view of the legal position the appellant is not entitled to any compensation and the appeal should be dismissed.
We have considered the submissions made by the appellant and the Ld.Advocates of the respondent. We have also carefully perused the materials on record including the evidence and exhibits. After considering the evidence of witnesses, exhibits and materials on record we find that the District Forum made wrong observation by mentioning that there was no proof of weighment of envelope and affixing exact stamp to be paid for its reaching to its correct address. The further finding of the District Forum that the envelope was not posted under Certificate of Posting is also erroneous. We find that such observations were made by the District Forum without properly looking into the documents which were marked as exhibits. Exhibit 2 is the instruction of State Bank of India and the instruction No.4 makes it clear that the State Bank instructed to send the envelope by ordinary post. The appellant had therefore, no opportunity to send the envelope either by Registered Post, or by Speed Post or through Certificate of Posting. The envelope concerning which the entire dispute arose is exhibit 4 and its weight does not indicate that stamp was insufficient. Besides that, the Post Office should have made endorsement on the envelope that insufficient stamp was affixed, if the Post Office on weighment found that stamp affixed was inadequate. Accordingly, we cannot appreciate these findings District Forum, though we find that the legal point indicated by the District Forum relying on the decision of the National Commission is correct.
The facts of this appeal as transpires from evidence and materials on records is well established that, the appellant on 07.02.08 (the post office stamp on envelope looks like 09.02.08) posted an envelope and it was to be sent to Post Box No.8218, Dahisar (East), Mumbai. The said envelope (Exhibit 4) was not delivered to the addressee and, instead of service, it was returned back to the sender at his address of District Sessions Court Complex, Port Blair. Exhibit 2 reveals that the sender was instructed to send the application form for the post of Probationary Officer of State Bank of India by envelope through ordinary post. The facts make it clear that the letter/envelope bearing a postal stamp of Rs.5/- was deposited at Aberdeen Bazaar, Post Office by ordinary post for sending it to the addressee at Mumbai but, the envelope did not reach the addressee, and instead, it was returned to the sender. The question that arises before us is whether the Postal Authority of Port Blair is thereby responsible to pay compensation to the appellant and, whether there was deficiency in service on the part of Postal Authority of Port Blair and thereby making them liable for paying compensation to the appellant?
We feel and understand the illluck of the appellant as his application form for the post of Probationary Officer did not reach the addressee, i.e. State Bank of India, Mumbai who fixed date of written examination on 27.04.08 for such post. Apparently, it would appear that post offices of Port Blair were at fault and negligent as envelope posted by the appellant was not sent to the addressee at Mumbai. The law saves the Government and Post Offices of Port Blair from any liability.
Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act lays down that; “ Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage - The 2[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 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, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default”. This Section exempts the Government from any liability for the loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, in course of transmission by post, or wrong delivery and even non-delivery particularly in the matter of postal articles deposited in Post Office for service by ordinary post.
The District Forum placed reliance on a larger Bench decision of the National Commission. The decision of Senior Superintendent of Post Office, South Calcutta-Vs-Sipra Pal reported in III (1999) CPJ 161 delivered by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission over which appellant placed reliance is not applicable in this appeal. The facts of the reported case and the facts of the present appeal are different. In the reported decision the complainant paid due charges to the Post Office for receipt of the call letter and it was delivered to her late. In the present appeal the complainant did not pay such special charges to the Post Office for service of the envelope to the addressee. Moreover attention of the West Bengal State Consumer Commission was not drawn to the larger Bench decision of the National Commission in Post Master, Imphal-Vs-Dr.Jamini Devi Sagolband reported in (2001) 1 CPJ 28 : 2000 (1) CPR 34. Had the attention of the West Bengal State Commission been drawn to the larger Bench decision of the National Commission mentioned above, we think that West Bengal State Commission would have passed order in different manner and not in the manner as reported in III (1999) CPJ 161. Accordingly, we place no reliance on the decision of the West Bengal State Commission referred to above and relied on by the appellant.
There are several other decisions of the National Commission as well as State Commissions throughout India on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, and such decisions make it clear that unless there is any proof of fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any particular postal employee, the Government and the Post Office cannot be held liable. In Hazarimal-Vs-Superintendent of Post Officers Services Department, Ratlam reported in (2003) 1 CPJ 177, the documents sent by the complainant through ordinary post did not reach the addressee. The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming heavy compensation and ultimately his complaint was dismissed by the State Commission. The complainant filed a revision before the National Commission. The National Commission held that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act no liability could be imposed on the respondents and the National Commission dismissed complaint.
The District Forum has referred to the larger Bench decision of the National Commission and we do not think it expedient to repeat the same to make our order and judgement lengthy. Still the substance of law that was pronounced by the larger Bench decision of the National Commission in the matter of Post Master, Imphal–Vs-Dr.Jamini Devi Sagolband referred to above is binding on all the State Commissions and the District Forum, and accordingly, we are bound to follow that decision though we share our sympathy on the illluck of the appellant. The larger Bench decision of the National Commission makes it clear that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, no liability can be fixed on the Government and Post Offices unless there is any proof that the loss, misdelivery or delay occurred on account of fraudulent or wilful act of any particular postal employee. In this decision the National Commission discussed at length on various aspects of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and also discussed several earlier decisions of it, and thereafter, laid down the law stated above.
In Superintendent of Post Office-Vs-Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 1999 (2) CPJ 41 and Ramesh Kumar Lakhotia-Vs- Post Master reported in (1993) 2 C.P.R 43 same view was laid down by holding that postal department did not incur any liability in respect of the envelope which was sent under Certificate of Posting but, it was received back by the complainant without service. It was held that the burden was on the complainant to prove that there was delay in delivery on account of fraudulent or wilful act or default of the postal department.
In the present appeal the appellant before the District Forum examined himself as PW-I and another witness on behalf of him who was PW-2 Aman Kishen Lall. The evidence of PW-I and PW-2 do not prove and make out that there was any allegation of fraudulent or wilful act on the part of any particular postal employee and their evidence did not prove that any particular postal employee of Port Blair acted fraudulently or wilfully which resulted into non-delivery of envelope to the addressee.
In view of the discussions made above it is clear therefore, that the complainant is not entitled to any relief or any compensation and there was no deficiency in service on the part of Postal Authority. In view of Section 6 on the Indian Post Office Act, the complaint was not maintainable and the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not find any merit in the appeal and the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgement and order passed by the District Forum in C.D.Case No.11 of 2008 is affirmed.
Send down the records of C.D.Case No.11 of 2008 to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Port Blair along with a copy of this judgement and order.
