STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Port Blair.
Org. Case No. 9 of 2002
Present 1. Justice S.N. Bhatacharjee
President, State Commission
2. Shri D.P. Mukhopadhyay
Member, State Commission
3. Ms.G.Kaur,
Member, State Commission
Shri. R. Kumar Swamy
S/o Shri R. Kamaraj,
R/o Haddo, Port Blair. ......Complainant
-Vs-
The Director of Postal Services and another
A & N Islands, Port Blair.
......Respondents
Dated 19th September 2003
The Complainant sent a registered letter through his Advocate at the address “The Garrison Engineer, 866 EWS, C/o 90 APO, Car Nicobar” on 9.6.200 1 vide receipt No. 3476 along with Acknowledgement due intimating the order of the Tribunal which was urgent one for granting relief to the complainant. The Addressee was the opposite party in the case filed by the complainant before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal regarding his service matter, which is still pending before the Hon’ble Tribunal being O.A. NO. 97/A&N/2001.
The Complainant Counsel after a long gap of nine months received the A.D. Card although the said A.D. Card was sent by Car Nicobar Post Office on 15.6.2001. The complainant suffered loss and injury which is to the Ten Lakhs as the case by Tribunal was adjourned for want of filing A.D. Card by the complainant. The complainant also claims Rs. 5000 (Rupees Five thousand) as the cost of litigations. The complainant was contested by the Respondent (Postal authority) denying its liability to pay the compensation taking refuge under statutory exemption. After having heard the Learned Counsel of both the sides we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The reasons are as follows:
It is a settled principle of law held by the National Commission and various other State Commission that the services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. The Post office cannot be equated with a common carrier. The Nationals Commission, while dealing with section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act has dwell on this aspect at length in The Post Master, Imphal and Ors. V. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, reported in 2000(1)CPR 34(NC) in the following words:
“9. It is to be noted that the Judgment of the Courts are based on two Fundamental principles. One is the absolute protection afforded to the Government and also the Government servants who had not dealt with the Postal articles themselves by Section 6. The other is the nature of postal Services provided by the Government extends throughout the territory of India. A letter sent from the remotest village in Kashmir will reach the addressee at the outer most point of Kanyakumari. A vast network has been built by the Government to provide this service. It has been emphasized that by posting a letter or handing over a packet at the post office for transmission to the address of the addressee, the sender does not enter into any contract with the Government. The sender really avails of a service statutorily provided by the Government. It is true that postage stamps have to be affixed but that is for augmentation of government revenue. It is not in the nature of a price paid for the service.”
Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act lays down that the provision Of the Act are in addition to but not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, This shows that the Act provides additional means of obtaining remedy by a consumer but if the remedy is barred under any other Act, then the various forums constituted under the Act cannot grant the remedy prayed for.
Therefore under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Central Government or the postal department will not incur any liability by reason of the loss, damage, misdelivery or delay in delivery of any postal article in the course of its transmission by post except where such liability is undertaken by the Central Government in express terms and that no Officer of the Post office incurs any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to the postal article unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.
In this case the complainant is not entitled to any compensation on merit also. There is no allegation that the letter was not delivered in the address. There is only allegation that the A.D. Card came back after nine months. There is no materials to show that the complainant suffered loss or injury for want of A.D. Card. The Order issued to the court of Tribunal has not been annexed to show that the addressee did not appear on the date fixed for which the case was adjourned for want of filing the A.D. Card or that the order of Injunction became infractuous due to delay However, the complaint is not entertain able by the Commission for the reasons mentioned above and the same is dismissed without cost .Xerox signed copy to be given to the parties duly signed by the Registrar.
