Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.08.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lack only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
It is the case of the complainant that she has passed secondary school examination 2008 and senior school certification examination 2010 ( annexure – 1 and 2 ). She has gone to Kota (Rajesthan) for preparation of competitive entrance examination from where she filled a form of Bihar Combined entrance competition examination and sent the same at the address of her maternal uncle so that the aforesaid form be sent to entrance competition examination board by registered speed post on 04.03.2011 for Patna.
It is further case of the complainant that the said speed post envelope reached at Patna on 08.03.2011 at G.P.O., Patna but bag was opened on 16.03.2011 after delay of 8 (eight) days and the said letter was delivered to addressee at Patna destination on 18.03.2011.
The complainant further asserted that such delay in delivering the letter restrained her for submitting her application form at Patna on or before 14.03.2011. In support of the aforesaid fact, the complainant has annexed photocopy of movement ( Status Report ) of aforesaid speed post article as annexure – 3.
The complainant has further asserted that from annexure – 3 it is crystal clear that the aforesaid speed post which was booked on 04.03.2011 for Patna reached at Patna on 08.03.2011 but it remained undelivered and the aforesaid bag was not opened till 15.03.2011 as stated above. The bag of speed post was opened on 16.03.2011 and it reached destination on 18.03.2011.
The complainant has further asserted that due to aforesaid callous attitude of the opposite parties, her Form could not reach Bihar Combined entrance competition examination board by 14.03.2011 resulting in annihilation of her career.
On behalf of opposite parties, written statement has been filed denying the aforesaid allegation of callousness. In Para – 5 of aforesaid written statement it has been asserted that aforesaid (SPA) “Speed Post Article” reached at Patna SPC i.e. Patna RMS and not at G.P.O. but due heavy accumulation of mail at Patna SPC i.e. Patna RMS, the SPA in issue could be dispatched on 16.03.2011 as will appear from annexure – A.
It has been further asserted by opposite parties that in this case there is no relevancy of Patna G.P.O. because the aforesaid bag containing the aforesaid SPA could be opened and sorted after 8 ( eight) days at Patna RMS due to accumulation of mails and the Patna RMS has not been made party in this case. In written statement, opposite parties have stated that as per information laid in “speed post customer guide” for the customer of speed post services it has been provided money back guarantee in case of delivery beyond the prescribed norm. The aforesaid guide and relevant rule in this regard have been annexed as annexure – A4 and A5 by the opposite parties.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The only grievance in this case of the complainant is that her speed post which was sent through speed post at Patna addressee on 04.03.2011. and the said envelope reached at Patna on 08.03.2011 at G.P.O. but the same was opened on 16.03.2011 after waiting for 8 (eight) days and served on 18.03.2011 and due to this fact her properly filled form could not be sent to the entrance competition examination board on or before 14.03.2011.
Opposite parties have asserted that the bag containing aforesaid speed post article reached at SPC i.e. Patna RMS and not the G.P.O. but due to heavy accumulation of mails the aforesaid bag was opened on 16.03.2011 ( annexure – A2 and A3).
It goes without saying that opposite parties have admitted that in opening the bag there was delay of 8 (eight) days due to heavy accumulation of mails. However this fact is also crystal clear that the aforesaid bag containing speed post of the complainant reached at Patna RMS and the delay was by Patna RMS and not the G.P.O. but the Patna RMS has not been made party.
So far legal position is concerned that section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1986 the Government is exempted from liability or loss mis-delivery delay or damage of any postal article in course of transmission unless the same has been caused by fraudulently or by willful default.
It goes without saying that the postal department belongs to central Government and as such no liability can be fixed in view of aforesaid provision of the Act.
The opposite parties have annexed as annexure – A4 which is titled as “facilities, to give you the edge”. In serial 4 of the Annexure – A4 following facts have been mentioned.” In case of delay in delivery of speed post articles beyond the prescribed norms, compensation/refund will be paid to the sender as per following.
- Double the composite speed post charge or Rs. 1,000/- which ever is loss in case of loss.
- Refund of speed post charge in case of delay from normal transit.
In Para – 17 of written statement it has been mentioned that the complainant has already been awarded refund of the speed post fee paid by her.
In view of the facts and discussion made above, we find no substance in this case because there is no material on the record to prove that the aforesaid bag containing the speed post of the complainant was late opened due to any malice etc. by the opposite parties.
In view of the fact discussed above, the complainant is only entitled for booking amount of the speed post and if the complainant has not received the amount he can filed appropriate application before competent authority who will immediately take steps towards payment of the booking amount of speed post without further delay.
For the discussion made above this complaint stands dismissed with the aforementioned observation.
Member President
