Sub Post Master and Others Vs. Hitesh Garg and Another

Sub Post Master and Others vs Hitesh Garg and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula Decided Apr 28, 2014

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1148325

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1148325
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Judge: Nawab Singh, President, the Honourable Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member &Amp; the Honourable Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Decided On: Apr 28, 2014
Case Number: First Appeal No. 843 of 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sub Post Master and Others

Respondent

Hitesh Garg and Another

Excerpt

.....within 30 days from the date of order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.? 4. in appeal, the solitary submission made on behalf of the appellants is that in view of section 6 of the post office act, the appellants-opposite parties shall not incur any liability in respect of the delay in delivery or loss of the article, unless some willful and fraudulent act is not proved against the officials of the department which has not been established in the instant case. 5. section 6 of the indian post office act, which reads as follows:- œ6. exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- the [government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery 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, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.? 6. this commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. the appellants have failed to adduce any evidence to show that any inquiry was conducted by the department so as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it was a willful act on the part of the post office officials or not. merely by saying that it was not a fraudulent or willful act, the appellants cannot be absolved from their liability. oral word in such matters will be of no value. 7. in revision petition no.3702 of 2012 titled as sr. superintendent of post offices versus pushpendra singh decided on october 15th, 2012, honble national commission has observed as under:- œ10.the second submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that section 6 of the indian post office act, 1898 comes to the.....

Full Judgment

NawabSingh, President (Oral):

1. Haryana Public Service Commission (for short HPSC), Sector-4, Panchkula, invited applications for the posts of Drug Control Officer (Class-II) in Health Department, Haryana, vide Advertisement No.1 Category (v) on June 8^th, 2012 (Annexure-C1).Hitesh Garg-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) applied for the above said post and sent his application through Speed Post contained in an envelope which was handed over to Sub Post Master-opposite party No.1 (appellant) vide receipt Annexure C-5 against payment of Rs.29/- as postal charges. Closing Date for receipt of the applications at HPSC was July 9^th, 2012. Instead of delivering the postal article at the destination, it was delivered to Staff Selection Commission, Sector-8, Panchkula on July 2^nd, 2013 due to which the application of the complainant could not reach HPSC, Haryana. Resultantly, the complainant was deprived of the interview for the above said post on account of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Post Office authorities.

2. Complainant (respondent No.1) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Kaithal.

3. District Forum vide order dated September 16^th, 2013 accepted complaint and issued direction as under:-

œ¦¦¦we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops No.1 to 4 to pay Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) towards compensation for deficiency in service on their part and Rs.3,000/- (three thousand) towards the cost of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges, within 30 days from the date of order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.?

4. In appeal, the solitary submission made on behalf of the appellants is that in view of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, the appellants-opposite parties shall not incur any liability in respect of the delay in delivery or loss of the article, unless some willful and fraudulent act is not proved against the officials of the department which has not been established in the instant case.

5. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, which reads as follows:-

œ6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery 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, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.?

6. This Commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants have failed to adduce any evidence to show that any inquiry was conducted by the department so as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it was a willful act on the part of the post office officials or not. Merely by saying that it was not a fraudulent or willful act, the appellants cannot be absolved from their liability. Oral word in such matters will be of no value.

7. In Revision Petition No.3702 of 2012 titled as Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices versus Pushpendra Singh decided on October 15^th, 2012, Honble National Commission has observed as under:-

œ10.The second submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 comes to the rescue of the respondent.He commented that there lies a rub for the consumer fora not to speak their mind in this context as they are not armed with this power.

11. This argument, too, deserves no consideration. The Post Office is not supposed to play with the carrier of the citizens of the country.The letters sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent.If there is delay due to some agitation, it is the duty of the State to find out some other method to prevent the delay in such like matters.The District Forum was pleased to observe:

œSection 6 not providing a windscreen to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc. on their part in discharge of their official duties-Not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service on their party.?

12. We are in full agreement with the above said observation.The willful default on the part of the petitioner stands proved to the hilt.The petitioners assumptions are all wet.?

8. In view of the above, this Commission finds that the conduct of appellants amounts to deficiency in service and willful fault on their part entitling the complainant for compensation.

9. Hence, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

10. The statutory amount of Rs.11,673/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent No.1 (complainant) against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

Same Court & Year Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Pa... Same Parties Sub Post Master and Others vs Hitesh Garg and Another Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Nawab Singh, President, the Honourable Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicia...