Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.08.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lack only) as compensation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
It has been asserted by the complainant that an application for MAT- examination was sent through the speed post to the manager CMS, All India Management Association (AIMA), management house 14 industrial area, lodi road, New Delhi 110003. The complainant has asserted that speed post was not delivered to the addressee but to somewhere else.
It has been further asserted that the last date of receipt of examination Form to the addressee was 18.01.2011 and two additional date of grace for receipt of the form was informally provided i.e. till 20.01.2011. The grievance of the complainant is that despite complaint lodged on 18.01.2011 no corrective measure was taken between 18.01.2011 and 20.01.2011 despite his repeated request in G.P.O. several times.
The complainant has further asserted that due to wrong delivery of speed post he could not appear in the examination which resulted in depression, social humiliation and economic loss besides mental agony.
On behalf of the opposite party no. 1 a written statement has been filed stating therein that the aforesaid envelope was booked on 10.01.2011 at Naya Tola P.O. under speed post service bearing no. EF 175 241 294 INaddressed to AIMA management house. The aforesaid speed post article was consigned by Naya Tola P.O. who is speed post center Patna where the same was listed in speed post and sent to Patna airport for further transmission to the destination on the same day i.e. 10.01.2011. In Para – 7 of written statement it has been asserted by opposite party no. 1 that on receipt of aforesaid speed post article, the delivery office at New Delhi region delivered the same on 13.01.2011 in time in bulk to CBSE New Delhi instead of AIMA New Delhi, thus the article was delivered in time but occurred wrong delivery due to some technical fault ( vide annexure – A1).
It has been further asserted that speed post service tries best for booking and delivery in time to correct address but in case or delay or loss or damage or misdelivery it guarantees for the refund of speed post charge as per customer guide, the photocopy of which has been annexed as annexure – A2.
On behalf of the complainant a rejoinder has been filed repeating the same facts stating therein that despite his complaint to the authority, the opposite parties did not tried to collect the speed post from CBSE and deliver the same to AIMA within two or three days from the date of complaint of the complainant but the opposite parties did not take care and as such the complainant is entitled to get compensation because the aforesaid act of opposite parties comes under the definition of willful act or default which is beyond the scope of Section – 6 of Indian Post Office Act.
The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that despite his request, the opposite parties did not redressed his grievance by collecting the aforesaid speed post article from CBSE and deliver the same to AIMA and this shows their will full conduct because the complainant has made complaint on 18.01.2011 and the last time with grace was 21.01.2011, therefore the opposite parties had sufficient time to redress the grievance of the complainant by collecting the SPA from CBSE and to deliver the same to AIMA i.e. within three days.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties had vehemently submitted that from the bare perusal of complaint petition as well as written statement it is crystal clear that the SPA booked by the complainant was delivered to CBSE though wrongly due to technical fault but this shows the attitude of opposite parties hence there is no aliment of willful default and as such the complainant is only entitled to receive booking charge of SPA as per annexure – A2.
We have gone through the entire record in the light of aforementioned submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
It goes without saying that the speed post which was booked on 10.01.2011 was delivered in CBSE on 13.01.2011. It is true that the aforesaid SPA was wrongly delivered to CBSE instead of AIMA due to technical fault and this shows that the authorities had taken prompt action in delivering the SPA.
It is needless to say that there is chance of wrong delivery, mis-delivery or loss due to huge volume of speed post letters and other letters and as such there may be chance of mis-delivery or wrong delivery due to human error or technical fault. The opposite party no. 1 has clearly admitted this fact and as such it comes under the protection of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act. which is as follows: “Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage – The Government shall not incure 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 incure any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act of default.”
On behalf of opposite parties several citations have been annexed which support the aforesaid view. Ever the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi in judgment dated 13.10.2010 passed in revision petition no. 2411 of 2006 (Union of India and Others Vrs. M.L. Vohra ) have held the aforesaid view and as such we are bound to follow the same.
It is also clear from complaint that no any specific allegation against specific staff employee of the department has been made so as to exclude from the purview of the protection of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act.
However it is made clear that the complainant is entitle for booking amount of the speed post and if the complainant has not received the amount he can filed appropriate application before competent authority who will immediately take steps towards payment of the booking amount of speed post without further delay.
For the reason stated above this case stands dismissed with aforementioned observation but without cost.
Member President
