The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Superintendent of Post Office, Balasore & O.P No.2 is the Branch Post Master, Orangi Branch Post Office, Dist- Balasore.
The Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the Complainant had sent a Registered letter to the Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee containing an application & some documents through Orangi Branch Post Office vide Postal Receipt No.4672, dt.03.04.2013. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.77/- (Rupees Seventy seven) only towards Postal charges. Subsequently, the said Registered letter was numbered as “RO473954871IN”. On 29.08.2013, the Complainant according to U/s. 6 (1) of the R.T.I Act, 2005 had enquired the cause of delay to S.C.L.S.C for providing the information as sought for vide his Regd. Letter dispatched on 03.04.2013. The Superintendent & C.P.I.O of S.C.L.S.C, New Delhi vide their letter No.3586, dt.09.09.2013 replied to the Complainant is as narrated “As reported by the Diarist of this Committee no letter dt.02.04.2013 allegedly sent by you to this Committee has received in this Committee. Further, letter addressed to the Complainant issued by Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Balasore on 10.12.2013, where it is stated that “In continuation of our letter regarding the complaint No.756000-04785, it is to inform you that the Complainant of Non-receipt of Acknowledgement/ Proof of Delivery of Registered letters with Acknowledgement with transaction No.RO473954871IN on 03.04.2013 of Haladipada is settled on 10.12.2013, with the following information that “not received”. The Complainant on receipt of the said letter applied to O.P No.1 on 18.12.2013 requesting to enquire the matter & for return of the above said Regd. Letter, but no positive result. Moreover, the Complainant requested to C.P.M.G, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide his letter dt.19.02.2014 to enquire the matter & arrange for return of said Regd. Letter. In reply to the letter dt.19.02.2014 made by the Complainant, the Asst. Director of CPMG, Odisha circle, Bhubaneswar vide letter dt.11.03.2014, regarding POD of Speed Post article No.RO473954871IN dt. 03.04.2013 informed O.P No.1 (Superintendent Of Post Office, Balasore) stating that “kindly get the matter enquired & arrange to send a suitable reply to the Complainant directly under intimation to this Office”. But the O.P No.1 has not yet acted as per the direction. The action/ service rendered by the Postal Department, the Regd. Letter is neither delivered to the addresses nor returned to the Sender till date, which caused mental agony to the Complainant.
Therefore, it is prayed for directing the O.P No.1 for compensation towards mental agony & litigation cost to the Complainant.
Written version filed by the O.P No.1 & 2, where it is submitted that except what has been specifically admitted in this counter, all other facts in the application are denied & disputed. In the interest of justice, it is just & expedient to state brief history of the case for better appreciation of their Lordship (s).
Brief history of the case, is that, the Complainant had booked one Regd. Letter bearing No.4672 at Orangi Branch Post Office in account with Haladipada S.O rebooked at Haladipada S.O vide RL No. RO473964871IN (instead of RL No.RO473954871IN) dt. 03.04.2013 addressed to the Hon’ble Secretary, SCLSC, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, New Delhi. Due to non-receipt of the said article by the addressee, the Complainant preferred one complaint to the O.P No.1 to make an enquiry to trace out the disposal of registered letter in question. The said complaint was registered on the website on the day of receipt i.e. on 29.11.2013 under complaint No.756000-04785 & an acknowledgement was also sent to the Complainant on the very day. One CPT-21 i.e. manual enquiry note was also sent to the Office of delivery to intimate the disposal of article. Thereafter, an interim reply “not received” basing on the report of New Delhi H.O was intimated to the Complainant for his information. Then, the O.P No.1 i.e. Superintendent of Post Offices, Balasore Division, Balasore did not remain silent furnishing such reply to him but issued search bill to trace out the stage by stage movement of the article in question & directed the S.P.M, Haldipada S.O, which is the Account Office of the Office of booking of Regd. letter in question to furnish the disposal of article under reference & forward the search bill to its next transit Office for similar action endorsing copy to the O.P No.1 i.e. Superintendent of Post Offices, Balasore Division, Balasore. The copy of the search bill issued vide letter No. CR-3/Misc/2013, dt.09.01.2014 is annexed as Annexure-R/1. Issuance of search bill by the O.P No.1 to trace out the stage by stage movement of the article in question is totally a lengthy & time consuming process. Hence, the present C.D Case arises.
On the facts & circumstances of the case, it is observed that the written version was filed by O.P No.1 & 2 on 28.07.2014. Proposed amendment was filed by the Complainant on 10.09.2014, followed by counter reply to the Amendment petition was filed on 16.12.2014 by the O.Ps. The Forum rejected the Amendment petition on 02.02.2015 filed by the Complainant on 10.09.2014. Again on 15.04.2015, the Complainant filed an application U/s. 11 Rule-14 of C.P.C, followed by the counter reply filed on 10.06.2015 on behalf of the O.Ps. In this case, the Forum also rejected the petition of the Complainant. As it appears from record, the Complainant has lodged complaint before the Postal Department for non-receipt of Regd. letter No. RO473954871IN by the addressee. As such alleging deficiency-in-service on the part of O.Ps, the Complainant has filed this case. After filing of written version by the O.Ps, it came to light that the Complainant lodged complaint before the Postal Department mentioning non-receipt of RL No.RO473954871IN instead of correct RL No.RO473964871IN. Further, the Complainant has alleged that his Regd. letter sent through Post missed on the way & did not reach in the destination due to negligence of the Postal Department, but he has not established that he posted the Regd. letter which did not reach the destination. On the other hand, the O.Ps have established that the Regd. letter reached the destination i.e. on 09.04.2013, which is intimated to the Complainant on 20.06.2014 through Regd. Post (Annexure-R/7). The above said Regd. letter is received by the Complainant on 25.06.2014 (Annexure-R/8). On the other hand, the Complainant has not disclosed the source about the Regd. letter No.4672 of Orangi Branch Post Office has been rebooked at Haldipada S.O vide R.L No. RO473954871IN on 03.04.2013 as reported in Complainant’s petition. And also the Complainant has not submitted regarding receipt of letter No. CR-3/Misc/2014, dt.20.06.2014 issued by O.P No.1 in connection with delivery of said R.L on 09.04.2013, which he has already received on 25.06.2014 during trial of the case.
According to Sec-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 regarding exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage:- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery, delay 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. Here, the Complainant has not submitted any proof regarding willful act or default of service to furnish the delivery status of his Regd. letter.
The sender of a Postal article does not enter into any contract with the Government. The sender really avails of a service statutorily provided by the Government. Postage stamps affixed is for augmentation of Government revenue. It is not in the nature of a price paid for the service. The Central Government performs Governmental function & the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through Post & the charges for the article transmitted by Post is in the nature of charges posed by the State for the enjoyment of facilities provided by the Postal Department & not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier. The reply furnished by O.P No.1 is based on the record of the Department & there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the Complainant.
From the above narration of facts & case records available in this C.D Case, we can safely say there is no valid ground to allege that there is no deficiency-in-service by the Postal Authorities. Hence, the Order:-
O R D E R
Having all regards to our aforesaid findings, the Complainant is not allowed and in the circumstances of the case, the Parties are advised to bear their own costs.
Order Pronounced in the Open Forum this day the 29th day of June, 2016 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
