Chief Post Master General vs KRISHNA MOHAN VERMA

THE present appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the ex parte order dated 19.1.1995 passed by the learned District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1509 No. 1509/93 directing the opposite parties (appellants) to make payment of Rs. 2,000/ (Rs. two thousand) to the complainant (respondent) as compensation.

ACCORDING to the complaint petition, Sri Krishna Mohan Verma posted a registered envelope addressed to Sanjojak, Samanway Samiti Sah Zila Avam Satra Nyayadhish, Vaishali, Hazipur on 25.8.1993 in Boring Road Post Office which reached the destination on 20.9.1993 due to the fault of the Post Office. The registered letter had been sent in response to an advertisement published for filling some vacancies. His application was refused to be entertained, as the last date of receiving applications was only 3.9.1993. As a result of this Sri Verma lost the opportunity of securing a job. He, therefore, prayed before the District Forum either to arrange entertainment of his application by the District Judge, Hazipur or to grant him a compensation of Rs. 50,075/ in lieu thereof. The appellant, in his memo of appeal although accepting late delivery of the registered letter has contended that the complainant could not make out a case that late delivery was caused due to fraudulent, willful act or default of any postal employee. The learned District Forum did not take evidence under Section 13(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986 to establish the charge. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned order of the learned District Forum, in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, may be set aside.

As the respondent failed to be present before the Commission inspite of notices through registered letters dated 2.4.1996 and 4.6.1997 and also letters through ordinary Dak dated 4.4.1997 and 14.6.1997 the appeal was heard ex parte.

THE learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant was heard who reiterated the points mentioned in the memo of appeal and referred to the orders dated 15.4.1993 passed by Hon''ble National Commission in Revision Petition Nos. 175 and 247 of 1992 and also the order dated 29.8.1996 passed by this Commission in Appeal No.341/94. On perusal of records it is apparent that the registered envelope, with address of the addressee written clearly and legibly in bold letter, was dropped in Boring Road Post Office on 25.8.1993. The letter was to be delivered to a well-known office at a distance of only twenty kilometers in the district headquarter. It took twenty-six days for the postal machinery to deliver the letter. There was no shortcoming on the part of Sri Verma in sending the registered letter, thus conclusively proving deficiency in postal service. The change of hands involved in transmission of the registered letter between the two places would not have been too many.

THE postal authorities would have done some service to consumers had they enquired into the matter at their own departmental level to find out the cause of delay and apprised the Commission as to why such delay occurred in delivery of the letter. Instead the appellant chose to seek relief under the cover of Section 6 of I.P. Act, 1898 which provides sweeping immunity to the Postal department and adequate immunity to the postal employees inasmuch as rarely any casual consumer can possibly establish the charge of fraudulence, willful act or default on the part of any of the postal employee. In such circum stances, the postal employees merrily can afford working indifferently with impunity defying any action under C.P. Act, 1986. It is not in our knowledge if departmental rules provide for any check on such casual and cavalier way of functioning of errant employees. We strongly feel, in such situation, that the Postal department may address themselves to find solutions to such problems frequently being pressed before the Commission. As it stands, inspite of the fact, this being a hard case of an unemployed young man losing the opportunity of seeking a job because of deficiency in postal service, as because the complainant has not been able to establish the charge of fraudulence, willful act or default on the part of any postal employees, the Postal Department and its employees shall consequently be entitled to immunity provided for in Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. In view of that it is held that the impugned order of the learned District Forum is not sustainable in law. We are supported by the citations referred to above in our finding. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the learned District Forum, Patna is set aside.

THERE is however no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.