DEPARTMENT OF POST vs MD. TAMIJUR RAHMAN

THIS appeal is against the judgment dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tezpur in CPA Case No. 21/1995 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent/petitioner.

THE case in brief is that the respondent/petitioner sent Rs. 2,000/- by TMO to his daughter at Aligarh University, Aligarh on 26.7.1995 through the Tezpur Head Post Office, but the TMO was not delivered in time. When the respondent/petitioner brought this to the notice of the appellant/opposite party on 17.8.1995, an inquiry was held by the appellant/opposite party and found that the TMO was delivered to the payee on 3.8.1995 and this fact was intimated to the respondent/petitioner on 25.9.1995. In the meantime, the respondent/petitioner is reported to have sent his son to Aligarh to bring his daughter who had to stay outside the hostel. As his daughter had to be brought by his son from Aligarh, he had to incur financial loss. Besides, he had to face harassment. THE respondent/petitioner, thereafter filed a complaint petition before the District Consumer Forum, Sonitpur Tezpur on 29.9.1995 for claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,01,020/- from the appellant/opposite party for deficiency in service and negligence. The District Forum, after hearing both the parties awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent/petitioner for the harassment as well as for the expenditure incurred by him in the litigation to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and an interest at the rate of 12 per cent till the realisation of the amount. This appeal before us is against the order of the District Forum.

The appellant admits that the respondent/petitioner sent Rs. 2,000/- by TMO through the Tezpur Head Office on 26.7.1995 to be paid at Aligarh. There was some delay in delivering the TMO as it was delivered to the payee on 3.8.1995 and not on 31.8.1995 as contended by the respondent/petitioner. For this delay, the appellant is not liable being protected by Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, it is contended, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 provides as follows : "The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to, any postal article in the course of transmission by post, except insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided and no office of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such cross, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default."

IT appears that unless there is fraud, wilful act or default, Post Office shall not incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post. The respondent has not been able to prove that there was any wilful act or default on the part of the appellant nor there is anything which can be termed as fraudulent. We are, therefore, inclined to agree to the contention that the appellant is protected by the provision of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The appellant has also brought to our notice the provision of Clause 220 of the Post Office Guide Part-I. IT provides as follows : "The Post Office will not be responsible for, (a) the wrong payment of a money order by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee; or (b) for the payment of a money order being refused or delayed by or on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake by or on the part of an officer of the Post Office; or (c) for any wrong payment of a money order after the expiration of one year the date of issue of the order."

The provision of the aforesaid Clause 220 of the Post Office Guide Part-I makes it clear that delay in payment of money order does not make it liable the officer of the Post Office. The TMO was sent by the respondent on 26.7.1995. On inquiry by the appellant, it was found that the payment of TMO was made on 3.8.1995 and not on 31.8.1995 as contended by the respondent. There was undoubtedly some delay in the payment of TMO but it does not make it liable under the provision of the said clause of the Guide Part-I. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant is not liable on this account.

THE appellant also brought to our notice a number of cases in which the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that unless there is fraud, wilful act or default in the course of transmission by post, officers of the Post Office cannot be held liable. In this respect specific mention may be made to Post Master General, Tamil Nadu v. Calvin Jacob, III (1994) CPJ 85 (NC), wherein the National Commission upheld the view as stated above. Similar views were taken by the National Commission in the Presidency Post Master General, Post Office v. Dr. U. Shankar Rao, Revision Petition No. 175 of 1992, and in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. Consumer Rights Protection Council, Revision Petition No. 247 of 1992. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the judgment dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonitpur, suffers from legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the said order dated 30.10.1996 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,000/- together with 12 per cent interest till realisation of the amount is hereby set aside. There is no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.