Date of Filing:14.08.2008<br /> Date of Order:03.02.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1785 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> K.S. Ramachandra,<br /> S/o Dr. K.R. Shamaiah,<br /> No.54 & 55, “Shyamleela”, <br /> Ward No.3, 14th Main,<br /> Off Abbigere Main Road,<br /> Opp: MNTI, Jalahalli West,<br /> K.G. Halli, Bangalore 560 015. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. The Post Master,<br /> M.G. Road Post Office,<br /> Public Utility Building, Mayo Hall,<br /> Bangalore-560 001.<br /> <br /> 2. The Chief Post Master General,<br /> General Post Office,<br /> Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,<br /> Bangalore 560 001. <br /> <br /> 3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office,<br /> Bangalore East Division, <br /> Museum Road, Bangalore-560 025. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has sent EMS Speed Post dated 13/05/2008 through M.G. Road Post Office. Same was returned wrongly with an endorsement as wrong Pin Code. The cover was resent by the complainant by registered post to the same addressee and it was delivered correctly to the addressee. This clearly establishes the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, complainant prayed cost of retuned EMS Speed Post of Rs.24/-, cost of fresh registered post charges and courier charges of Rs.50/-, stationary expenses of Rs.75/- general damages for deficiency service of Rs.2,500/-, special damages for mental agony of Rs.25,000/- and cost of legal constitution and notice charges of Rs.500/- against the opposite parties.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties put in appearance through learned Advocate and defence version filed stating that non-delivery of article by the opposite parties never amounts to deficiency of service by the opposite parties and requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The learned Advocate for the opposite parties referred and relied upon Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The said Section reads as under:-<br /> 6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage:- The (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 in so far 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 willful act or default. <br /> <br /> 5. The learned Advocate for the opposite parties referred to as decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in support of the argument that there is no liability on the part of opposite parties to pay compensation. The ruling relying upon reported in SC & National Commission Consumer Law Cases 571 it has been held as under:-<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1)(g) and 21 – Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Section 6-Compensation-Award of by the State Commission for delayed delivery of postal packets – Held that the relationship between the sender of postal article and the post office is governed by the Indian Post Office Act and not by law of contract or tort – There is no liability at all for loss or non-delivery of a postal article except in so far as specifically provided by the statute under Section 33 and Section 6 or any other regulation or rule – No allegation of any fraud or willful act or default on the part of any one of the respondents – The complaint must fail and liable to be dismissed. <br /> <br /> 6. Another ruling relying upon by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Commission reported in CPJ 1999 Volume-III page 227 of, it has been held as under:-<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 17/12 – Complaint – Indian Post Office Act, 1898 – Sections 2(b)(i), 3 and 21 – Postal Article – Speed Post – Section 6 – Exemption from Liability – Application for interview sent by speed post – Delay in delivery – Complaint – No allegation of fraud or willful act – Speed Post is a postal article – Opposite party is exempted from liability of loss. <br /> <br /> <br /> 7. Another authority relied upon by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Commission reported in 1999 II CPJ 18 wherein it has been held as under:-<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Indian Post Office Act, 1898 – Section 6 – Immunity – Registered Parcel – Complaint – District Forum awarded compensation – Appeal – Liability not undertaken in express terms by opposite party – No proof or loss caused fraudulently – Appeal has to be allowed. <br /> 8. In view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and on the above authorities of law it is clear that no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of postal article, unless same was done fraudulently or by willful act or default. The complainant in his entire complaint never made any allegation of fraudulent act or willful default on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, in the absence of any fraud or willful act or default on any one of the opposite parties the complaint must fell and same is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act no liability can be fixed on the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for the compensation claimed resultantly and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 9. The Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 10. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr.,<br />