Haryana

Ambala

CC/210/2012

NARESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE POST MASTER - Opp.Party(s)

R.D DHIMAN

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

           Complaint Case No.    : 210 of 2012

Date of Institution       : 25.07.2012

           Date of Decision         : 10.03.2017           

Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Sumer Chand R/o villae Kool Pur, P.O. Sawan Majra, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar.

                                                                                                            …..Complainant.

Versus

1.         The Post Master (in his official capacity),Main Post Office, Ambala City, District Ambala.

2.         The Post Master (in his official capacity) Post office at Sewan Majra, District Ambala.

                                                                                                            …..Opposite Parties.

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. R.D. Dhiman, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. R.K.Sobti PRO alongwith

             Sh. Dev Batra, Adv. for Ops.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present case are that the complainant is physically handicapped and  is entitled to  the employment  as per his eligibility under the quota of handicapped persons reserved by the Government.  It has been submitted that complainant against advertisement had applied for the post of Peon in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Ambala under the quota of handicapped.  The office of District & Sessions Judge, Ambala dispatched the interview letter no.2575 dated 29.10.2010 to the complainant against the application of the complainant through  OP No.1 on 04.11.2010 and the OP no.1 sent  the same to the OP No.2 for delivering to the complainant at village Koolpur and the same was delivered to the complainant on 16.11.2010 and on receipt of said letter, the complainant was over-joyed with the hope that  he will get employment under handicapped quota.   But when  the letter was opened, complainant was stunned  and surprised to read that the date of interview  for te said post was fixed on 12.11.2010 whereas the interview letter received on 16.11.2010.   Thus the complainant has submitted that due to late receipt of interview letter , he has been deprived of his valuable rights of  getting employment. Complainant has submitted that the act of the Ops  is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  However, the OP  despite issuance of registered A.D. Notice dated 27.11.2010 refused to pay the damages. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objection qua non-maintainability of complainant that  Section 3 of  COPRA 1986  provides extra remedy  in addition to any law for the time being in force.  The Hon’ble National Commission  explained in Revision Petition that they cannot go beyond the provisions statutory fixed and Section 6 exempts post office from any liability for loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal articles in the course of transmission by post office and  no legal  proceedings  can be initiated against the department. On merits, it has been submitted that  the letter  was posted through ordinary mail by the sender. In case of ordinary mails no record of movement from stage to stage in the transit between the office of posting to the office of delivery is maintained and hence, the reason for delay, if any, cannot be ascertained and responsibility of Ops for the same cannot be fixed.  Further it has been submitted that there is no relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and Ops because the said letter was not handed over the postal authorities by the complainant itself for its carriage and delivery to the addressee.  As such, the Op has prayed that there is no deficiency in service  on the part of Ops and sought for dismissal  of the complaint.

3.                     To prove his version, complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-9 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, representative for Op tendered affidavit of Sh. J.K. Gulati, Supdt. Of Post Offices, Ambala as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 

 

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.  Counsel for Ops has insisted his arguments that the complaint against the department is not maintainable under section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 and drawn our attention  to the assertion made in the section which is reproduced as under:-

“6. Exception from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage:- The[Government] shall not incur 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 in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central government as hereinafter  provided; and no off icier of the Post office shall  incur any liability  by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.

 

                        Counsel for OP has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in case titled Senior Supt. of Post Offices Vs. Rajbir Singh decided on 26.10.2016 wherein it has been held that “the complainant has not leveled allegation against any specific official of the Department of Posts alleging that loss of the postal article was caused by the said employee with fraudulent intention or by willful act or default on his part.  Insofar as the Government is concerned, Section 6 grants  complete immunity  to the Govedrnment of liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to the postal articles.

                        The scope of Section 6 was considered comprehensively by a five Members’ bench of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in  Post Master, Imphal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, 1(2000) CPJ 28 (NC) wherein it was held that: “The Section very clearly lays down that 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 insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as provided by the statute and no officer of the Post Office shall  incur any  liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery , delay or damage unless he has cause the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

5.                     After going through the contention of the parties as well as well the case laws referred above, we are of the view that the complainant has not raised allegation against any individual official and did not lead any evidence to prove that the loss was caused on account of fraud or willful act or by any default on the part of postal officials, thus Ops cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED ON : 10.03.2017                                            

                                                                                                       Sd/- 

                                                                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                                   PRESIDENT 

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                              (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                       MEMBER