HEAD POST MASTER vs NEERAJ GUPTA

REVISION petition no. 664 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur ( ''the State Commission '') in appeal no. 451 of 2012 filed against the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, Rajasthan ( ''the District Forum '') in Case no. 269 of 2011.

THE brief facts of the case as per the complainant/respondent are as follows: Complainant/ respondent is a resident of Alwar City and is an educated unemployed. The office of District Parishad, Alwar had invited applicants for appointment to the posts of Gram Sewak and ex-officio Secretary, whose final date was fixed as 27.12.2010. For this post, the complainant/ respondent properly filled the application on 23.12.2010 and send the same through Speed Post through non-applicant no. 2/ petitioner no. 2 and submitted the application to the Chief Executive Officer, Office Jilla Parishad, Alwar. For that the non-applicant no. 2 after receiving charges of Rs.25/- issued one receipt no. ER 014280739 IN on 23.12.2010. Hence, the complainant/ respondent is a consumer of the non-applicant. At the time of giving receipt, the non-applicant no.2 gave this assurance to the complainant/ respondent that the time prescribed for reaching the Speed Post is 24 hours and the above Speed Post shall reach the stated place safely on 24.10.2010. On that the complainant/ respondent believed in good faith.

After sending the form, the non-applicant did not enquire into reaching of the said form to the prescribed place, because of believing in good faith the assurance of the non-applicant no. 2 and assumed this that the above form has reached the desired place in the prescribed time. But in the last week of December, the above form sent through Speed Post was received in the house of the complainant/ respondent, undelivered on which there was a stamp dated 30.12.2010. When the complainant/ respondent enquired about the returning of the above form, the complainant/ respondent was not given any satisfactory reply. The complainant/ respondent enquired from Jila Parishad Alwar, then he got this information that the forms which were received by them after the prescribed time limit were not accepted by the above office and they have been returned and the form received by the complainant/ respondent is the above returned form. In this way, it is clear that the form has not been delivered in the prescribed time to the prescribed place and in this way the above act of the non-applicant comes under the category of fault in those services.

THE complainant/ respondent had the last chance to apply for the above job and due to the above careless act of the non-applicant, the complainant/ respondent has been deprived to appear in the above examination whose adverse results have to be borne by the complainant/ respondent in future.

THE petitioner/ opposite party no. 1 while admitting that the Speed Post article has been received. They have given the sequence of events which reads as under: Manager, Speed Post Centre, Jaipur G P O through his letter no. S P/ J P/ Jaipur DCPF case no. 269 of 2011 dated 21.06.2011 has informed this that the above Speed Post letter, after being entered in the Sitapura Post Office, Jaipur on 23.12.2010 at S No. 13/123 reached Speed Post Centre/ 2A, Jaipur on 23.12.2010. Speed Post Centre/ 1 A, Jaipur on 24.12.2011 and getting entered at S no. 188/ 218 in the Speed Post Bag entered at S no. 5/6-6 was out through JP 26 and through JP 26 out was sent to the Main Post Office, Alwar on 24.12.2010. The main Post Office, Alwar sent the above Speed Post letter for distribution to Moti Doongri Post Office, Alwar. Moti Doongri Post Office, Alwar sent the letter on 29.122010 for delivery to the receiver, which the receiver refused to take. Moti Doongri Post Office entered it in the Speed Post list at no. 19/43 on 29.12.2010 and returned it to the complainant/ petitioner.

The Central Government using the laid down powers in Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898) section - 21 has made the following amendment in Indian Post Office Rule 1933, rule 66 - b, condition 5 (which was published in the Gazette of India dated 21.01.1999 under G S R 40 (E): - In distribution of domestic Speed Post things, in case of delay according to laid down guidelines from time to time, the indemnifying amount shall be equal to the total speed post charges. According to Business Development Directorate, New letter no. 43-4/87 - BDD dated 22.01.1999 - in delivery norms published from time to time, as part of money back guarantee, the Speed Post charges paid by the customer will be refunded. After establishing that the Speed Post article has been distributed late according to laid down guidelines, therefore, under the Department ''s Rules under Money Back Scheme, the Senior Post Master, Jaipur, GPO through his office memorandum no. SP / J P/ OW - 4966/ 2011 dated 21.06.2011 issued sanction to give the complainant the Speed Post charges Rs.25/- after deducting Rs. 2/- service. Rs. 23/- and the Senior Post Master, Jaipur G P O sent the amount of Rs.23/- at the address of the complainant/ respondent through Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur cheque no. C - 681 dated 28.06.2011. The complainant/respondent was eligible for getting refund of Speed Post charges only which the opposition has already paid. Besides this, the complainant/ respondent is not eligible for getting any indemnity from the opposite party no. 1 and 2.

The complainant/ respondent had filed this complaint at the Hon ''ble Court directly. Before this, the complainant/ respondent had not lodged any complaint to the Postal Department for delay in distribution. If the complainant/ respondent had complained to the Postal Department, then the non-applicant no. 1 and 2 would have tried to redress the complaint according to Department ''s rules earlier itself and there would not have been any need to bring this complaint to the Hon ''ble Court by the complainant/ respondent. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant/ respondent being opposite to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, is fit to be dismissed in the first stance itself. The District Forum vide their order dated 22.02.2012 came to the conclusions that "in this way, the opponent Postal Department by conveying the above application after the prescribed date, had deprived the complainant/ respondent to appear in the organised competitive examination, as such have defaulted in service against the complainant/ respondent. Therefore, in our humble opinion, the complaint of the complainant/ respondent against the Postal Department has been found fit to be accepted in the following way: Therefore, it is ordered that the opponent Postal Department, to indemnify the complainant/respondent against the economic and mental agony, shall pay Rs.20,000/- within one month from today. By not abiding the above order in the prescribed time, the complainant/ respondent shall be eligible to obtain the above all amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of judgment till the date of payment ".

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2012. Hence, the present revision petition. The main grounds of the revision petition are as follows: Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 was interpreted by this Hon ''ble Commission consistently in various judgments delivered by it from time to time clearly stipulates that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery 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. It further stipulates that no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reasons of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. By posting a letter or handing over a packet at the post office for transmission, the send does not enter into any contract with the Government. In law, the sender really avails of a service statutorily provided by the Government. Although it is true that postage stamps have to be affixed, but that is for augmentation of Government revenue and the same are not in the nature of a price paid for the service as has been held by a 5 Member Bench of the National Commission in Post Master, Imphal vs Dr Jamini Devi Sagolvad (2000) 1 CPJ 28 and which decision has been followed in various other recent decisions.

THE orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission in the instant case are contrary to provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and the Indian Posts Rules, 1933 besides being in the teeth of various judgments delivered by the Hon ''ble Commission in cases involving similar questions of law and facts. The respondent had booked his Speed Post through the Post Master, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur and the cause of action in the instant case arose at Jaipur and therefore the District Forum, Alwar had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and on that ground alone the orders of the District Forum and consequently the non-speaking order of the State Commission have to be set aside in the interests of justice. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay of 63 days. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are as follows: - The State Commission, Rajasthan passed the impugned order on 21.09.2012. However, the office of the petitioners herein received the order of the State Commission only on 09.10.2012 as there was the Gujjar agitation going on in the State of Rajasthan due to which various State activities and functions were handicapped. - Thereafter on 01.11.2012, the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, after going through the file, requested for legal advice from the Ministry of Law. - Upon obtaining the legal opinion of the Ministry of Law and considering the question of law involved in the present case, a decision was taken to file the present revision petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the records of the case. Counsel for the petitioner could not explain the reason for the gap from 09.10.2012 to when the order of the State Commission was received and date on which Chief Post Master General requested for legal advice from the Ministry of Law on 01.11.2012. The Counsel could not also explain as to when the said advice was received and the sequence of events between 01.11.2012 to 20.02.2013 when the revision petition was filed. Hence, the petitioner has failed to prove sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

IT is indeed surprising to note that in respect of the inordinate delay in delivery of the Speed Post article which had cost an unemployed youth his chances for obtaining a job, the department is trying to get out by paying a paltry compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent. We feel that Rs.20,000/- can in no way compensate the respondent for the lost opportunity. The petitioner would rather seek protection under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The petitioner is a service provider and the Consumer Protection Act should be consumer friendly and not one which works against the interest of the Consumer. The petitioner should also see whether it is justifiable and fair to deny paying a meagre compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the consumer by spending far more on legal expenses in fighting the case in different Fora.

IN view of the above, we find that there is no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference. The revision petition is dismissed on merit as well as on limitation with cost of Rs.20,000/-. Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the respondent directly by way of demand draft and the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account " of this Commission within eight weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. List on 26th July 2013 for compliance.