KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

                    VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO: 413/2004

                                 JUDGMENT DATED:09..09..2010.

PRESENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                   : MEMBER

1.Superintendent of Post Offices,

  Thalassery Division,                                           

  Temple Gate, Thalassery.

2.Speed Post Thalassery,

  Customer Care Centre,                                       : APPELLANTS

  (Postal, Thalassery).

3.Chief Post Master General,

  Kerala Circle,

  Trivandrum-695 033.

(By Adv. Sri.K.R.Haridas)

            Vs.

Smt. Vanaja Raghavan,

W/o Raghavan, Madathil House,                        : RESPONDENT

Moozhikkara, Thalassery.

                                       JUDGMENT 

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.55/02 on the file of CDRF, Kannur.  The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not delivering the speed post article to the addressee at Chennai.  Thereby the complainant claimed a total of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.  Opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service, they claimed immunity under Section-6 of the Post Office Act.  It is further submitted that the opposite party/Postal authorities are only liable to pay compensation equal to the composite speed post charges paid.  Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 documents were marked on the side of the complainant.  No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation with cost of R.250/-.  Hence the present appeal.

3. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant entrusted the postal article for transmission and delivery to the addressee at Chennai.  The entrustment of the postal article is admitted by the appellants/opposite parties.  It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the postal article entrusted for sending the same by speed post was lost in transit.  Thus, the deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties has been established.

4. The respondent/complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- with cost of Rs.250/-.  It is to be noted that by virtue of  Sec.6 of the Post Office Act, the postal authorities are exempted from liability.  The appellants/opposite parties claimed immunity by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec.6 of the Post Office Act.  It is as follows:- “The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis delivery or delay of, 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, mis delivery, or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.”

5. It is a settled position that the Government and the postal authorities are entitled for the absolute immunity as provided under Se.6 of the Post office act.

6. There is no case for the respondent/complainant that the postal article was lost in transit on account of any fraudulent or wilful act or default on the part of the appellants/opposite parties or their subordinate staff.  There is also no case for the respondent/complainant that the Government of India had undertaken any liability in the event of loss or mis delivery of the postal article.  Thus, the appellants/opposite parties are entitled to get the immunity under Sec.6 of the Post Office Act.

7. Admittedly, the postal department has issued circular and thereby the liability of the postal department is limited or fixed as equal to total speed post charge or Rs.1000/- whichever was less.  It is held by the Hon’ble National Commission in State of Haryana Vs. Leelaram and also in the decision rendered by the National Commission in the case of Head Postmaster, Post Office, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana Va.Vijay Rattan Aggarwal, I (1997) CPJ 487 that Consumer Fora cannot grant compensation more than what is statutorily fixed.  The liability for the postal department to pay compensation is limited to double the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- whichever was less.  If that be so, the Forum below cannot be justified in awarding compensation of Rs.5000/-.  The aforesaid preposition regarding fixed liability has been held in a recent decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of speed post through Manager, Speed Post Office, G.P.O Building, Jaipur Vs. Laxman Sing reported in I (2010) CPJ 29 NC.  Wherein it has been held that the postal department can be held liable to pay double the speed post charges paid by the complainant/consumer.  So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified accordingly.

In the result the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in OP.55/02 dated:31/3/2004 is modified and thereby the appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay compensation to the respondent/complainant at double the speed post charges paid by the respondent/complainant (consumer).  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

M.V. VISWANATHAN  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

VL.