Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices and Others Vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma

Mr. Justice B.N. Sinha, President:

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 22.5.92 passed by the District Forum, Saran at Chapra in Complaint Case No. 50 of 1991 in which the appellant before this Commission was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

2. The complainant filed a case before the District Forum, Saran alleging as follows. He had applied for his appointment in the Indian Air Force and received interview letter for the same, that he appeared in the interview and was quite hopeful of being selected, that he was expecting his appointment letter any day after 6.12.90 and therefore he always visited the Kewani Post Office inquiring about his appointment letter from opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 but no such letter was given to him. The complainant has further alleged that when he went to the recruitment office of the Indian Air Force at Patna on 1.4.91 to inquire about the same and he was informed that he had been selected that his appointment letter was sent to him directing him to report on duty on the 13th March,1991, and that thereafter he requested the authorities of the Patna Air Force to consider his case because the date had already passed and no appointment letter was ever delivered to him. But the authorities rejected his prayer. He returned from Patna on 2.4.91 and contacted O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 and he was informed by them that the letter had been delivered by mistake to another Manoj Kumar Sharma. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were familiar with his writing and the appointment letter was sent in the self-addressed envelope of the Complainant and that the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 did not deliver the appointment letter to him due to “deliberate misconduct” on their part specially on the part of the O.P. No. 4, as a result of which he had been deprived of the appointment and sustained loss to the tune of several lacs of rupees.

3. On being noticed the opposite parties filed their written version stating inter-alia that the Complainant never inquired about his appointment letter form O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 and that one Manoj Kumar Sharma s/o Nand Lal Sharma came to the Post Office on 20.2.91 and inquired about his letter from O.P. No. 3 and in good faith the registered letter was handed over to that another Manoj Kumar Sharma who received it and that it is a case of misdelivery due to mistake and that there was no deliberate latches on the part of the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4.

4. The Complainant examined himself before the District Forum.

5. The District Forum on taking into consideration the allegations made by the Complainant, the averments on behalf of the opposite party in the counter version and the evidence of the Complainant accepted the case of the Complainant and directed the opposite party for payment of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation and Rs. 200/- as the cost of the case to the Complainant.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the maintainability of the case under Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) and he has placed reliance on Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices. Act which reads as follows : —

“The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may by 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 wilful act or default.”

7. It is apparent from the reading of the Section that no officer of the Post Office is liable to incur any liability by reason of any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the letter was not delivered to the Complainant deliberately by O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 to deprive him of his employment. The District Forum in his order has held that this was done by the O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 due to envy and enmity. But this finding of the District Forum can not be sustained on the evidence of the complainant. The Complainant had very clearly admitted in his course of cross-examination that O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 have no dispute and litigation with him and there are in his village other persons also named Manoj Kumar Sharma. Moreover, it appears from the Lower Court record that haziri was filed on behalf of the Complainant before the District Forum describing himself sometimes as Manoj Kumar Sinha and sometimes Manoj Kumar only. The envelope in question does not contain the name of the father of the addressee or the Sender's name. Under the circumstances the letter could have been by mistake misdelivered to another Manoj Kumar Sharma.

8. Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act in clear word exempts the officer of the post office to incur liability for any such misdelivery unless it is established that he caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. It is evident from the discussion made above that there is no material on record to hold that misdelivery was caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default. Hence we are constrained to hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief under this Act. We are supported in our view by the decision of the National Commission in the case of Presidency Post Master, General Post Office, Madras v. Dr. U. Shankar Rao (Revision Petition No. 175 of 1992) and The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. Consumer Rights Protection Council (Revision Petition No. 247 of 1992 both decided by a common order on 15.4.93.

9. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. There is however no order as to costs.