DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLKATA, UNIT-II

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 7^th floor, Kolkata – 700 087

C.C. No.132 of 2012

Date of filing                                          Date of Admission                                   Date of Order

Complainant :

Sushil Kumar Narnoli, FL. No.B-14/220, K.V. Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., V.I.P. Road, Kolkata – 52.

    Vs.

Opposite Parties :

The Post Master, Yogayog Bhawan, P.O. Kolkata – 700 012, P.S. Bowbazar.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­__________________________________________________________________________________

                                                            .                                        

          Before : HON’BLE PRESIDENT   :   SHRI B. MUKHOPADHYAY

ORDER

Order No.                 .

Shri B. Mukhopadhyay, President.   

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            On thorough study of the complaint and written statement it is found that grievance of the complainant is that he sent one article through consignment EW765274025IN in favour of CEO, Central Government Employees Welfare House Organization, 6^th floor, ‘A’ Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001 on 12-02-2011 containing application form for the registration of a flat in the Greater Noida House Scheme along with a demand draft amounting to Rs.2,41,100/- as application fee but fact remains the said consignment sent on 12-02-2011 was delivered on 25-04-2011 after a gap of almost 2 and half months.  It is further alleged that for non-receipt of the said consignment by the authority complainant is deceived to get a chance to get a flat at Noida for the laches of the Postal Department.  In this regard complainant sent letters to the Postal Authority who admitted their mistake but no compensation has been awarded for which the present complaint was filed for relief. 

            On the other hand by filing written statement submitted that fact of the case as alleged in the complaint is not denied but it is their defence that as per Section 84 of the Postal Act, the Government shall be liable to pay compensation for insured postal articles/complainants article subject to condition and restriction of Central Government as per provision of Section 84 of the Act.  And it is further submitted that department concern initiated action so the question of deficiency of service is not tenable and moreover after completion of investigation by a sanctioned memo dated 19-07-2012 a sum was issued in favor of the complainant to the extent of Rs.25/- as per Rule and so the present compliant is not maintainable.

Decision with Reasons

On hearing the Ld. Lawyer of the Postal Department and also considering the reply it is clear that Postal Department failed to deliver a speed post of the complainant within 48 hours but it was handed over after two and half months and though it is fault of the Postal Department, since a sum of Rs.25/- as compensation as per Rule was admitted.  But question is whether service was deficient in manner or not.  No doubt Ld. Lawyer for the OP failed to give any explanation against the negligent manner of service of the Postal Department but tried to convince this Forum that they have taken action by paying Rs.25/- in the begging bowl of the complainant and that is the relief made by the Postal Department.  But peculiar factor is that Postal Department did not think for a moment that for non-delivery of the said article to the authority (addressee) complainant has failed to register his name against a flat at Noida.  Such a loss cannot be compensated by the Postal Authority.  Then question of awarding of Rs.25/- by the Postal Authority is nothing but alms to a beggar even a beggar can earn Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- per day by loitering outside the four corners of the G.P.O. office and it is the approach of the Postal Department.  A loss of the complainant cannot be compensated by the Postal Authority but worthless act of employee of the postal authority are not penalized for such activities or no penalty was collected from that fellows for handing over it to the complainant but the Postal Act of the British Period is in their hand and pocket and they are taking protection by that Act.  But we must have to more dynamic in respect of the spirit of the deficiency of service of the C.P. Act and no dejected interpretation can be made in respect of the definition ‘service’.  Interpretation shall be always liberal as per spirit of the legislation for which the Act was promulgated and if we go through the entire object of the C.P. Act, 1986 we are sure for deficiency in service compensation can be awarded.  There is no restriction of awarding compensation but compensation must be awarded by applying the principle of Law of Equity.  No doubt in this case, the Ld. Lawyer of the OP submitted unreported ruling in 314 (2003) passed on 29-08-2005 by National Commission and also another Revision Petition No.2411 of 2006 passed on 13-10-2010 and submitted that by posting a letter or anything or packet is posted at the post office for delivery at the address of the addressee centre does not contract with the sender but as per Rule available statutory service provided by the Government.  But as per judgment and also considering this provision of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act it is found that said provision has given baseless protection to the Government against any claim for damages on account of loss of a postal document/article etc. in cases of any loss or delay to the extent of which it is specifically provided in the Act itself and Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the said provision of Section grants, complied immunity to the Government for loss, mis-delivery or damages to the postal articles and considering the principle of law we are no doubt with agreement of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but fact remains that the very fact that service was not properly given it is undisputed.  And for non-giving proper service by the Postal Authority practically one man can loss one chance for getting flat it is a simple matter but there are so many instances wherein many incidents many students have failed to get their admission in different institution for one of delayed delivery of letters and many boys failed to get such chance to appear in the interview board of the selection for appointment for late delivery of the letters by the Postal Authority and if their such sort of act are protected by Section 6 of the Act then we can say that there is no legal control of Postal Authority for their negligent and deficiency manner of service.   But after considering the definite clause service of the C.P. Act, 1986 we find for deficient manner and negligent manner of duty by the Postal Department, they may be imposed penalty on the ground that the present act is meant for giving proper service if it is found any department is found reckless and negligent for that said Department may be imposed penalty for non-giving proper service and considering the spirit of the provision of the Act, 1986 and his spirit of the definition service as laid down in the Act we are convinced to hold that in the present particular case postal authority is found to pay compensation because this person has failed to get a flat for the laches and negligent manner of service of the OPs.  In the light of the observation we are convinced to hold that Postal Authority is no doubt negligent and deficient in rendering service to the present complainant and for which invariably the present postal authority shall have to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant and also litigation cost. 

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) against OPs and OPs shall have to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant along with litigation cost within one month from the of this order failing which for  dis-obeyance and non-compliance of the Forum’s order they shall be imposed a punitive damages @Rs.2,000/- (at the rate of Rupees two thousand only) per month and even ten if it is found that they are lingering to comply the order within stipulated period in this case warrant shall be issued by adopting a proceedings  u/s.27 of the C.P. Act.