BRANCH POST MASTER vs C.MANIKAYAM

THE second opposite party in C.D. No. 117/93 District Forum, Chittoor i.e., Branch Post Master, Allamadugu Post Office is the appellant. THE first respondent in this appeal is the complainant and the second respondent is the first opposite party i.e. THE Superintendent, Department of Posts in the C.D. 117/93.

THE respondent No. 1 herein filed a complaint stating that she was a student of Sri Venkateswara University and she applied for exemption of attendance to Registrar of Venkateswara University, Tirupathi. Alongwith the application to the Registrar, she sent all the required certificates and also the challan for Rs. 256/-. At the time when she applied, she was staying at Chinnaramapuram village, Bhimavaram post, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor Distt., and later she shifted temporarily to her parents house at Allamadugu post and village, Karvetinagar Mandal, Chittoor District. Since she did not receive any communication from the University, although the examinations are approaching she approached the authorities and on enquiry she learnt that exemption orders along with all original documents were sent to the complainant by Registered Post under RL. No. 1381 dated 8.1.1993. Since the said registered letter was not delivered to her she made a complaint to the Superintendent of Post Offices i.e; first opposite party. Enquiries were made by the department which revealed that the registered letter (sent by the University) was re-directed from Bhimavaram Post Office to Allamadugu Post Office and the Branch Post Master of Allamadugu village i.e., the second opposite party received the above, said letter on 12.1.1993. But the said letter was misplaced. When the complainant approached the Branch Post Master of Allamadugu, according to the allegations in the complaint, the second opposite party i.e.. Branch Post Master tried to obtain the complainant''s signature as though the registered letter was delivered to her by threatening her and using undue influence. She brought the same immediately to the notice of the opposite party No. 1 about the attitude of the second opposite party. It was alleged that the second opposite party was inimical to the family of the complainant due to the village politics and so he has misused his office knowingly and purposefully within intention of causing damage to the complainant. Alongwith the complaint, she filed an affidavit of one P. Doraswamy who is working as a postman in Allamadugu Post Office and also filed Exs. A-l to A-5. The first opposite party in their version sent by post submitted that the complainant filed a complaint in their office on 7.6.1993 alleging non-delivery of the registered letter RL. No. 1381 dated 8.1.1993 of Sri Venkateswara University and on enquiry it was revealed that the second opposite party lost the registered letter and departmental action was being taken against the second opposite party.

The second opposite party in his counter denied all the allegations and submitted that he should not attend to the delivery of the letters and it is the duty of the postman to deliver the letters and if there was any non-delivery, the liability is that of the postman. He further submitted that Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act is a bar for proceedings against him and relied on the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in RP No. 175 of 1992, The Presidency Post Master v. V. Shankar Rao. When the case was posted for orders on 19.4.1994, the second opposite party filed two applications (1) to re-open the case and (2) for permission for filing additional objections. The applications were allowed by the District Forum. In the additional objections, it was stated that one P. Doraswamy i.e., postman who is working in the same Post Office is inimical to him and his family and dis-appearance of the letter might be the hand work of postman to take vengeance against the second opposite party and his family and filed the Xerox copy of the judgment in 159/91 on the file of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Puttur.

THE District Forum framed two points for consideration, (1) whether the provisions of Sec.6 of the Indian Post Offices Act are applicable, (2) whether there is deficiency in service. On the first point, it held that the postal department fixed the liability on a particular officer i.e., the second opposite party and it was also found that in the enquiry that the particulars of Registered letter which was received by the second opposite party on 12.1.1993 were not noted in the Branch Office, Journal which is the Branch Office record, with regard to the disposal of the registered letters, money orders etc. The acquittance of the postman, Allamadugu Branch Office was not obtained in token of having received the article for delivery to the addressee from the Branch Office. It was also mentioned in the version sent by the first opposite party among the enquiry, the second opposite party admitted that he failed to note the receipt of Registered letter under reference in B.O. Book dated 12.1.1993 and that the postman has stated that the registered letter under reference was not entrusted to him for delivery either as a registered letter under reference was not entrusted to him for delivery either as a registered letter or as an ordinary article. The first opposite party also informed the same to the Venkateswara University and to the complainant as evidenced by Exs. A-3, A-4 and A-5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the District Forum found that the second opposite party due to wilful act or default purposefully did not deliver the Registered letter in view of the enmity with the complainant''s family. It therefore held that Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act has no application and directed the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards loss and compensation and Rs. 300/- towards costs to the complainant and dismissed the complaint against O.P. 1. In this appeal preferred by the appellant i.e., second opposite party, it is firstly submitted that Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act is a bar to the maintainability of the complaint against him. We are not inclined to agree with the said submission. It is clear from the later portion of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act that any officer of the Post Office is liable for any loss caused due to his fraudulent conduct of his wilful act or default. In the instant case, the enquiry conducted by the first opposite party clearly revealed that the registered letter was received in the Branch Post Office on 12.1.1993 and the Branch Post Master did not make any entry in register about the receipt of such a letter. On the other hand in his objections filed initially the Branch Post Master took the plea that he handed over the letter to the postman and it is the duty of the postman to deliver the same to the addressee and for the failure of the postman to deliver the same to the addressee, the second opposite party cannot be held responsible. But the enquiry conducted the Postal Department Reveal that the second opposite party did not make any entry in the book at all about the receipt of the registered letter and also about the handing over the Registered letter to the postman for being delivered to the addressee. As no acquaintance of the postman was obtained in the register. It is a small Post Office and there will be hardly few registered letters daily and the failure to make an entry in the register and handing over the same to the postman to be delivered to the addressee cannot be due to any over-sight or mistake. We are satisfied having regard to the allegations made in the complaint, that the second opposite party wilfully did not make any entry in the register and when the complainant questioned him about it, he tried to obtain the signature of the complainant by duress to show as if that letter was delivered to the complainant. In these circumstances, we are of the view that Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act has no application to the instant case.

SINCE the complainant deliberately and wilfully defaulted in delivering the letter to the complainant, we are satisfied that there is deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party and the complainant is entitled for payment of compensation. It cannot be said having regard to the circumstances of the case that the complainant already lost two academic years that the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum is either excessive or unreasonable. In the result, the appeal dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.