BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 5th day of February, 2015
First Appeal No.10/2014
V.Ravi, S/o Venkatesa Counder,
Main Road, Morattandi,
Auroville Post, Vanur, Tamilnadu ……….. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Sub Post Master,
Auroville Post Office,
Auroville – 605 101.
2. The Head Post Master,
Head Post Office,
Rangapillai Street,
Puducherry.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Puducherry Division,
No.198-C, Chetty Street, Puducherry
4. The Director of Postal Services,
O/o Post Master General,
Chennai City Region,
Chennai – 600 002. …………. Respondents
(On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.116 of 2010, dated 14.07.2014)
Consumer Complaint No.116 of 2010
V.Ravi, S/0 Venkatesa Counder,
Main Road, Morattandi,
Auroville Post, Vanur, Tamilnadu ……….. Complainant
Vs.
1. The Sub Post Master,
Auroville Post Office,
Auroville – 605 101.
2. The Head Post Master,
Head Post Office,
Rangapillai Street,
Puducherry.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Puducherry Division,
No.198-C, Chetty Street, Puducherry
4. The Director of Postal Services,
O/o Post Master General,
Chennai City Region,
Chennai – 600 002. …………. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
TMT.K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
FOR APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT.:
Thiru A.Latchoumicandane,
Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR RESPONDENTS/O.Ps..:
Thiru R.Balasubramanian,
Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel,
Puducherry
O R D E R
(By Hon’ble Justice President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry made in Consumer Complaint No.116/2010, dated 25.03.2014.
2. The complainant therein is the appellant herein and the opposite parties are the respondents in this appeal.
3. The parties are referred in the same nomenclature as they have been arrayed before the District Forum, Puducherry.
4. The case of the complainant as put forth by him before the District Forum, in nutshell, is stated hereunder:
He was working as supervisor for several years in Auro Food Limited and the company was taken over by the International Bakery Products Limited, Thiruchitrambalam. He was a good worker and received gold medal for his well performance in the company. All of a sudden, he fell sick and hence he could not attend the Office and he has taken medical leave and was extending the same. While so, his leave was taken seriously by the company and an enquiry was conducted against him by employing a domestic enquiry officer. He has replied to the letter of the enquiry officer stating that his health condition does not permit him to attend the enquiry and he has been informed that further enquiry will be intimated to him. While so, he received a letter stating that his services were terminated. When he contacted the enquiry officer, he has shown the proof of deliver for the two letters sent by the company. He was shocked to see them, but in fact he has not received the said two letters from the company. Therefore, on 14.06.2010, he has written a letter to the Post Master regarding the delivery of the registered letter No.159, dated 24.06.2009 and No.1338, dt.29.06.2009. The 3rd Opposite Party gave a reply to the same saying that it was wrongly delivered to a third party by mistake and hence an action is contemplated against the person, who delivered the letters to the third party. Later, the complainant applied under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 and has received reply from the 3rd opposite party. Due to the non-delivery of the letters by the opposite parties, the life of the complainant was ruined and his family members were put to mental stress besides loss of job. Therefore, the complainant sought for compensation for loss of income and mental agony suffered by him.
5. The reply version was filed by the opposite parties before the District Forum and the gist of the reply version is set out hereunder:
On receipt of complaint from the complainant, the 1st opposite party was addressed by the 3rd opposite party to intimate the date of delivery of the registered letters No.159 dated 24.06.2009 of Thiruchitrambalam and 1338, dt.29.06.2009 of Pondicherry Head Post Office. A reply came from the 1st opposite party and the same was received by the 3rd opposite party vide letter dated 15.06.2010 stating that the said two registered letters have been delivered on 24.06.2009 and 29.06.2009 respectively with the explanation offered by the delivery agent Mr.M.Abdul Ajeez. He has admitted that the letters have been delivered not to the addressee and they were delivered to one Mr.Manikandan, as per the oral request of the complainant. A disciplinary action has been taken against the delivery agent Mr.M.Abdul Ajeez by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Pondicherry (North) vide Memo No.GDS/MD II/Auroville/2010, dated 02.12.2010. The said Manikandan has admitted the receipt of two registered letters and also stated that the same have been intimated to the complainant's house and handed over to the complainant. As per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Government shall not incur any liability of the lost, mis-delivery or delay of or any damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. Therefore, reply version sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. On behalf of the complainant, he examined himself as CW1 and documents Exs.C1 to C14 were marked. He was also cross-examined by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have examined RWs 1 to 5 and marked Exs.R1 to R17. On behalf of the complainant, they have been cross-examined.
7. The District Forum framed three points for determination. They are:
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2. Whether any deficiency in service attributed by the O.P.s?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
8. As regards point No.1, it has been found by the District Forum that the complainant is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. As regards second point, it has been found by the District Forum that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint in view of the shelter under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Regarding point No.3, it has been found by the District Forum that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed the complaint.
10. As stated already, the present appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum in dismissing the complaint.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently contended that the two registered letters addressed to the complainant/appellant were not at all delivered to him, but in fact, it was delivered to one Mr.Manikandan, who has not been authorized by the complainant to receive the said letters from the Post Office. He has further submitted that no such authorization letters have been produced and marked on the side of the opposite parties for serving the letters which have been addressed to the complainant to the said Manikandan. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties strenuously contended that the complainant has orally given authorization to the Post Master to hand over the registered letters to one Manikandan if it is addressed to the complainant. While considering the said contentions raised on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties, we are of the view that the opposite parties have not established that the complainant has given oral instructions either to the Post Master or to the delivery man to hand over the registered letters to the said Manikandan. In fact, we found from the statement of the delivery man who has been examined as RW2 that he has handed over the two registered letters, which is the subject matter of the appeal, to Mr.Manikandan, who has been examined as RW1 in the Post Office itself. That apart, even assuming that the complainant has given oral instructions to the delivery man to hand over all the letters addressed to him including registered letters to the said Manikandan, RW2 – the delivery man should not have acted on such oral instructions. He should have directed the complainant to give authorization letter to the Post Master and the Post Master, in turn, should have asked the delivery man to hand over all the letters addressed to the complainant to the said Manikandan, Thus, we are of the view that the delivery man – RW2, has exceeded his limit by handing over the two important letters addressed to the complainant to the said Manikandan. It is a clear case of negligence on the part of the delivery man. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that even assuming that the delivery agent has handed over the registered letters to the said Manikandan mistakenly, in view of Section 6 of Indian Post Office, 1898, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any damages or compensation to the complainant. For this, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office, 1898 referred to above contemplates that Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of or any damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, no liability can be fastened at them for the same. But, if the non-delivery was caused to due to fraudulent or willful act on the part of the department, then, definitely the compensation shall be payable to the said person to whom the letter was addressed was not delivered to him.
12. Before considering the rival contention, it is useful to extract Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and is extracted hereunder:
"the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of or any 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 herein after provided and no officer 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.
13. The above reading of the provision of law makes it clear that the liability cannot be fastened on the Government for the loss, mis-delivery or delay of or any damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, but, if the same is caused fraudulently or willfully, the liability can be fastened. In the case on hand, it is the case of the complainant that the delivery has been wrongfully made to Mr.Manikandan by the delivery man RW2.
14. RW2, at least on three occasions, has handed over the registered letters addressed to the complainant to the said Manikandan without any authorization given by the complainant. This will clearly establish that the delivery man has delivered the letters addressed to the complainant to the said Manikandan wrongfully and it is a mis-delivery.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the decision reported in (1993) 2 CPR 591/(1994) 1 CPJ 291 in the case "Department of Posts Vs. J.K.Diagnostics" rendered by Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad. It has been held therein that "Letters were delivered to some other person – Mis-delivery of a registered letter to wrong person is an act of negligence and the post office is liable for compensation for such deficiency in service – Provisions of Section 6 of the Post Offices Act would not be applicable in case of deficiency in services.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision reported in (1992) 3 CPJ 235 / (1992) 2 CPR 736 in the case " Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. Pushpavati V. Kanekar" rendered by Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji. It was held therein that "The delivery of the Registered Letter to person other than the addressee is a wrong delivery on the part of the appellants amounting to deficiency in service. Admittedly, the respondent had to suffer loss and inconvenience due to the non-receipt of the letter."
17. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision reported in (2005)3 CPJ 256 in the case "Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. Atma Ram" rendered by Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun. It has been held therein "The learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them found that there was no authority with the Postal Department to deliver the envelope to Rakesh Kumar and in the absence of any such authority, the delivery to wrong person is definitely deficiency in service. The learned Forum, therefore, allowed a compensation of Rs.20,000/- as above. Against which order the present appeal has been filed." In this case, the view taken by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Goa and Gujarat was followed therein.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also relied on the decision reported in (2009)1 CPR (NC) 41 in the case "Superintendent of Post and Telegraph Vs. M.L.Gupta" rendered by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It has been held in Paragraph 7 as follows:
"7. In this case, it is very clear that there has been a default and gross negligence on the part of the postal authorities in not ensuring the delivery of the postal articles to the right addressee, which has caused pecuniary loss to the complainant. Hence, we feel that the postal authorities cannot take shelter under the said provisions of the Act."
19. Relying on those decisions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act cannot employ in the present case, in view of the mis-delivery of the registered letters addressed to the complainant to one Manikandan without any authorization by the complainant. We find force in the said contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is a clear case of default, gross negligence and mis-delivery on the part of postal authorities without ensuring delivery of the postal articles to the right addressee, which has caused mental agony and loss to the complainant. The postal authorities cannot shirk their liability under the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. It has to be seen that the Act was enacted a century back when there were no Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act has been framed and enacted with an intention to make good the loss to the consumers which is a welfare legislation. Therefore, we are of the view that based on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 alone we cannot hold that the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant/appellant.
20. The complainant in his complaint has prayed for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- compensation for mental agony, loss and sufferings. How he has arrived at such a figure has not been established in the complaint. No doubt, because of the non-delivery of the registered letter to him, he could not participate in the enquiry proceedings against him, which has resulted in termination of his service by his employer. At the same time, it has to be seen that the Labour Court has directed his re-instatement, however without back wages. As regards back wages, the complainant has approached the Hon'ble High Court, Madras challenging the order of the Labour Court disallowing back wages. So, the High Court has to decide whether he is entitled for any back wages or not. When this is the subject matter of the High Court, we cannot say that there is a loss of wages to him between the period of his termination and re-instatement. However, the respondents cannot escape from their liability in paying compensation to the appellant/complainant for the mental agony, pain and loss suffered by him. Therefore, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) has to be payable to him as compensation by the respondents/O.Ps for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. In our view, it will be just and reasonable amount to be awarded to the appellant/complainant.
21. As far as cost is concerned, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The said amount cannot be excessive as the complainant is fighting for his right before the District Forum and in this Commission. Definitely, he would have spend considerable amount for the same. Therefore, we order for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the appellant/ complainant.
22. Thus, considering the overall circumstances discussed above, we are of the view that the District Forum has not considered the matter in proper perspective, which resulted in injustice caused to the complainant.
23. In the result, we set aside the order of the District Forum, Puducherry passed in C.C.No.116/2010, dt.14.07.2014 and allow the appeal in part. As already stated, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One-Lakh only) is awarded as compensation for mental agony and sufferings and a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten-Thousand only) towards costs. The said amount shall be payable by the respondents/opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2015
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
