Post Master, Keshavgiri and Others Vs. Cor. S.P. Illangovan - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1114204
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnMar-09-1995
Case NumberF.A. No. 1202 of 1994
JudgeA. VENKATARAMI REDDY, PRESIDENT, THE HONOURABLE MRS. J. ANANDA LAKSHMI, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER
AppellantPost Master, Keshavgiri and Others
RespondentCor. S.P. Illangovan
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - sections 15 and 14(1)(d) - indian post office act, 1898 - section 6 - case referred: ii (1993) cpj 141 (nc). (relied) [para 6] comparative citations: 1996 (1) clt 508, 1996 (1) cpr 66, 1995 (3) cpr 277, 1995 (3) cpj 277a. venkatarami reddy, president: 1. aggrieved by the order of the district forum, hyderabad in c.d. 799/94, whereby it directed the opposite parties i.e; (1) postmaster, keshavgiri post officer, hydera bad (2) sr. superintendent of posts (se), hyderabad, (3) the sr. superintendent of posts (south), bombay and (4) the postmaster, nariman point post office, bombay to pay to the complainant compensation of rs. 5000/- and costs of rs. 500/-, this appeal is preferred. 2. the respondent herein sent by registered post a cover from hyderabad to m/s. industrial credit and investment corporation of india ltd. for short 1cici for transfer of shares which were purchased by him. the said letter did not reach the icici. on account of the failure of the opposite parties to deliver the letter, the complainant was put to lot of inconvenience and expenditure to go to bombay and get the duplicate certificates issued. alleging that due to the negligence of the opposite parties in not delivering the letter, he incurred expenditure and also lost dividend and also sustained loss of non-conversion of shares into cash for reinvestment, he claimed in all a sum of rs. 17,324/-. 3. in the counter, the opposite parties pleaded that on receiving the complaint, the matter was investigated and it was found in the investigation that the registered letter was received by opposite party no. 4 i.e., nariman point post office, bombay on 19.3.93. but its further disposal was not forthcoming. it wasalso submitted that the complainant should have insured the cover especially when he was sending the share certificates for transfer. a further plea was taken u/sec. 6 of the indian post offices act the postal department is not liable and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. the district forum found that under the rules, the complainant is not bound to insure the cover in which the share certificates have been sent. it further held that "fraud and wilful act are writ large on the face of loss of a registered letter, such a registered letter cannot disappear without a wilful act of an officer of a post office. wilful act is obvious and implied in a situation where a registered letter is lost in transit". it therefore held that the first part of sec. 6 of the indian post offices act does not apply and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of rs. 5000/- and costs of rs. 500/-. 5. in this appeal, preferred, it is submitted by mr. d. krishna murthy, the learned counsel for the appellants that the district forum committed an error in presuming that a registered letter cannot disappear without a wilful act of an officer of post office. no officer of the post office at nariman point was made a party to the complaint. there is no finding of the district forum that any officer caused the loss of letter fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. it is therefore submitted that in the absence of any specific finding that a particular officer caused disappearance of a letter fraudulently or by his wilful act or default, the district forum erred in directing the opposite parties who are not the officers of the department to pay compensation. we see sufficient force in the aforesaid contention. 6. it was held by the national commission in the presidency post master and another v.dr. u. shanker rao, ii (1993) cpj 141 (nc) an interpretation of sec. 6 of the indian post offices act that:— "counsel for the revision petitioner inter alia relies on the said provision and contends that no claim will lie against of postal department or its officers merely on the ground that there has been loss misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by the postal department unless the same has been caused fraudulently by the officer complained against of the post office or by his wilful act or any default. under the scheme of the act the claim for compensation will lie at the instance of the consumer only if there is deficiency in service. according to the revision petitioners the statutory protection to the central government which is in absolute terms stands as an exception to the general law relating to the commercial carriers. post office is a branch of public service functioning under a statute and the liability for mis-delivery or late delivery of an article can be fastened on the postal department or its officers only on the basis of express provisions of the post office act. the services rendered by the post office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. establishing the post offices and running the postal service the central government performs a governmental function and the government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for the articles transmitted by post is in the nature of charges imposed by the state for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the postal department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. the post office cannot be equated with a common carrier. 12. we are of the opinion that both the claim petitions referred to above are not maintainable in view of sec. 6 of the indian post office act. as noticed earlier there is no allegation that the loss, misdelivery or delay occurred on account of fraudulent or wilful act of any particular postal employee." hence in the absence of any finding by the district forum that a particular officer caused disappearance of the registered letter by either fraudulently or by his wilful act or default, the opposite parties cannot be liable. no officer was made a party to the complaint. moreover even in the enquiry conducted by the postal department, they could not find any pin point against any particular officer responsible for disappearance of the letter. we are therefore, satisfied that the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation or costs. 7. the appeal is allowed and the order of the district forum is set aside. having regard to the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. appeal allowed.
Judgment:

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:

1. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Hyderabad in C.D. 799/94, whereby it directed the opposite parties i.e; (1) Postmaster, Keshavgiri Post Officer, Hydera bad (2) Sr. Superintendent of Posts (SE), Hyderabad, (3) The Sr. Superintendent of Posts (South), Bombay and (4) The Postmaster, Nariman Point Post Office, Bombay to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 5000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-, this appeal is preferred.

2. The respondent herein sent by registered post a cover from Hyderabad to M/s. Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. for short 1CICI for transfer of shares which were purchased by him. The said letter did not reach the ICICI. On account of the failure of the opposite parties to deliver the letter, the complainant was put to lot of inconvenience and expenditure to go to Bombay and get the duplicate certificates issued. Alleging that due to the negligence of the opposite parties in not delivering the letter, he incurred expenditure and also lost dividend and also sustained loss of non-conversion of shares into cash for reinvestment, he claimed in all a sum of Rs. 17,324/-.

3. In the counter, the opposite parties pleaded that on receiving the complaint, the matter was investigated and it was found in the investigation that the registered letter was received by opposite party No. 4 i.e., Nariman Point Post Office, Bombay on 19.3.93. But its further disposal was not forthcoming. It wasalso submitted that the complainant should have insured the cover especially when he was sending the share certificates for transfer. A further plea was taken u/Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act the Postal Department is not liable and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Forum found that under the rules, the complainant is not bound to insure the cover in which the share certificates have been sent. It further held that "fraud and wilful act are writ large on the face of loss of a registered letter, such a registered letter cannot disappear without a wilful act of an Officer of a post office. Wilful act is obvious and implied in a situation where a registered letter is lost in transit". It therefore held that the first part of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act does not apply and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-.

5. In this appeal, preferred, it is submitted by Mr. D. Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the appellants that the District Forum committed an error in presuming that a registered letter cannot disappear without a wilful act of an Officer of Post Office. No officer of the Post Office at Nariman Point was made a party to the complaint. There is no finding of the District Forum that any officer caused the loss of letter fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. It is therefore submitted that in the absence of any specific finding that a particular officer caused disappearance of a letter fraudulently or by his wilful act or default, the District Forum erred in directing the opposite parties who are not the officers of the Department to pay compensation. We see sufficient force in the aforesaid contention.

6. It was held by the National Commission in The Presidency Post Master and Another v.Dr. U. Shanker Rao, II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC) an interpretation of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act that:—

"Counsel for the Revision Petitioner inter alia relies on the said provision and contends that no claim will lie against of Postal Department or its officers merely on the ground that there has been loss misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by the Postal Department unless the same has been caused fraudulently by the officer complained against of the Post Office or by his wilful act or any default. Under the scheme of the Act the claim for compensation will lie at the instance of the consumer only if there is deficiency in service. According to the Revision Petitioners the statutory protection to the Central Government which is in absolute terms stands as an exception to the general law relating to the commercial carriers. Post Office is a branch of public service functioning under a statute and the liability for mis-delivery or late delivery of an article can be fastened on the Postal Department or its officers only on the basis of express provisions of the Post Office Act. The services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. Establishing the Post Offices and running the postal service the Central Government performs a governmental function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for the articles transmitted by post is in the nature of charges imposed by the State for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier.

12. We are of the opinion that both the claim petitions referred to above are not maintainable in view of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. As noticed earlier there is no allegation that the loss, misdelivery or delay occurred on account of fraudulent or wilful Act of any particular Postal employee."

Hence in the absence of any finding by the District Forum that a particular officer caused disappearance of the registered letter by either fraudulently or by his wilful Act or default, the opposite parties cannot be liable. No officer was made a party to the complaint. Moreover even in the enquiry conducted by the Postal Department, they could not find any pin point against any particular officer responsible for disappearance of the letter. We are therefore, satisfied that the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation or costs.

7. The appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.