DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No. 364/2013
Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Gyan Pratap Singh
R/o E-3/244, Gali No. 8B, 4th Pusta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094
….Complainant
Versus
- The Post Master
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024
- The Chief Post Master General
Meghdoot Bhavan, Link Road
New Delhi-110001
- Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
South Devision, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 18.06.2013
Date of Order : 21.02.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
- Complainant has requested to pass an award directing the Post Master, the Chief Post Master General and SR. Superintendent of Post Office (hereinafter referred to as OP-1,2 & 3 respectively ) (i) to return the original postal articles; (ii) to pay Rs. 1 lac as damages/compensation towards mental pain etc; (iii) cost of complaint etc.
- Brief facts of case are as under:-
The complainant sent a speed post article from post office-Lajpat Nagar, Delhi vide Speed Post No. ED806633609IN on 26.02.2013 to Sh. Lal Bahadur Yadav, R/o Saini Jagdish Pur, Post Office Alipur, Distt. Sultanpur, UP. The envelope contained photographs of daughter and wife of the complainant. The wife of complainant had applied for the post of Cook in Aganbadi and complainant was also looking suitable match for his daughter for which these photographs were sent. The postal receipt is annexed as Annexure A-1. The said postal articles were not delivered till March 2013. The complainant made enquiries regarding status of postal articles but no satisfactory reply was received. The complainant wrote a written request on 02.04.2013 to OP-1. The same is enclosed as Annexure A-2. The complainant, on not receiving any reply filed RTI on 20.05.2013. However, a vague reply from SR. Superintendent of Post, South Division New Delhi was received which does not specify the status of the articles. The aforesaid acts and omissions constitute gross deficiency in services on the part of OPs. The wife of complainant could not submit her form for the said post. Hence the complaint.
- OPs filed Written Statement interalia raised some preliminary objections. The complaint is without any cause of action. The complaint is barred under the provision of the Indian Post Offices Act Section 6 affords immunity to the department in following manner:-
“The Govt. is exempted from liability for loss, miss-delivery, delay or damage. No officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability, for any loss, mis-delivery, delay etc unless the same is caused fraudulently or any willful act or default. The Hon’ble National Commission has time and again held that protection of Section 6 of aforesaid Act is absolute. It is held in “The Presidency Post Master & Anr Vs. Dr. U. Shankar Rao 1993(2)CPJ 141 that”
“Post Office is a branch of public service functioning under a statute and liability of mis-delivery or late delivery of an article cannot be fastened on the Postal Department or its officers except as provided in the Act. The services provided by Post Offices are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. Central Government does not engage in commercial transmission in sending of articles. The post cannot be equated with a common carrier.”
The Hon’ble National Commission in various R.Ps :-
- SR. Post Master, GPO, Pune Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat 1995 (2) CPJ 230
- Post Master General & others Vs. Nisha Ranthan, decided on 14.02.2005
- Post Master Vs Neeraj Kumar Bhat decided on 16.11.2006.
- The common thread in all these R.Ps is that “Bare reading of this Section 6 show that it grants complete immunity to the Govt. for liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to the postal articles. 2nd Part of this Section deals with individual liability of the postal employee only when willful act or default is shown.”
- OPs further contended that Section 3 of C.P. Act also bars the complaints. It is also stated that articles were booked on 26.02.2013 and correctly dispatched to speed centre, Lucknow Sorting Hub on 26.02.2013 itself by AMPC and as per telephonic information obtained from office of delivery, the article under reference was delivered to its addressee on 01.03.2013. The OPs have enclosed the receipts of said article by addressee by way of additional evidence as exhibited as Ex-RW-1/B.
The OPs have contended that no cause of action had ever arisen. As such, no deficiency in services is established against OPs.
- Both the parties have filed Written submissions and evidence in affidavits. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. The OPs have filed application for seeking permission to adduce the additional evidences. This Commission vide its order dated 17.02.2022 allowed the application. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
- This Commission has gone into the entire gamut of issues. Due consideration was given to the arguments. The grievance of the complainant was non-delivery of articles, as a result of which his wife could not apply for the post of Cook under the State Government. To support his contention, the complainant has quoted the following judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Head Post Master & Anr. Vs. Neeraj Gupta (2013) CPJ 844 (N.C.) where it is held that Postal Department is a service provider and should be consumer –friendly and not one which works against the interest of the consumers. The Hon’ble Commission dismissed the Revision Petition of the Postal Deptt. upholding the order of Hon’ble Distt. Forum. The complainant also referred the case titled as SR. Superintendent of Post Offices, Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Singh.
- OPs have referred Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act which provides immunity to the Deptt. in following words:
“The Govt. is exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage. The Govt. shall not incur any liability for the loss, mis-delivery or delay if or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission unless willful act or default is established by the other party. But in the instant case, the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence in this regard.
- It is further mentioned by OPs that as per GSR 40 E dated 21.01.1999… “In case of delay in delivery of domestic speed post articles beyond norms determined by postal Deptt. from time to time, the compensation shall be equal to the composite speed post charges and in the event of loss of domestic speed post article or its contents or damage to the contents, the compensation shall be double of the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs. 1000/- whichever is less.”
- In view of this, the Deptt. cannot go beyond statutory provision. In the instant case, the receipt of delivery is shown to have been annexed with the evidence in affidavit of OPs.
OPs have referred the following cases as explained above.
- The Presidency Post Master & Anr. Vs. Dr. U. Shankar Rao. The gist of said judgment is that establishing the Post Offices and running the postal services, the Govt. does not engage in commercial activities. The charges so fixed by the Govt. are in the nature of welfare state or cannot be equated with consideration as mentioned in C.P. Act.
- SR. Post Master, GPO Pune Vs. Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat 1995 (2) CPJ 230. The gist of this judgment is that Section 6 bars the claim of the complainant. There has to be allegation on the part of complainant that the article was lost by fraudulent or willful act or default of any official of OPs.
- Post Master Vs. Neeraj Kumar Bhat vide judgment dated 16.11.2006 that the only allegation made was non-delivery of the articles. As held by the Commission in catena of judgments that Section 6 of above mentioned stated helps the Post Office in this regard.
The OPs also maintained that compliant is barred by Section 3 of C.P. Act. The National Commission in SR Post Master GPO Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat 1995(2) CPJ 267 National Commissioner held that “Section 3 of CP Act only provides additional remedy for the Redressal of a grievances but if the remedy is barred under any other law, no relief can be granted under this fact. He drew our attention to Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act….”
- After having considered the facts and circumstances and case law as mentioned above and receipt of the delivery of articles, this Commission is of the strong opinion that the OPs are not short of obligation: The complainant could not prove its case, however, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission but facts of these verdicts are different from the facts of the instant case.
The OPs have adduced catena of judgment covering various facet of the case, as discussed above and proved its case and onus was discharged completely. The complaint fails and prayer therein is rejected.
No order as to cost.
Parties to be provided copy of order as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
