HEAD POST OFFICE HOSHIARPUR vs Ranjeet Kumar

MR. Justice S. N. Aggarwal, President-Ranjeet Kumar respondent had sent a parcel through the appellants on 27. 6. 2006 to his friend Sunil Sharma working in Kulak Construction Company, Tallil Air Base, Logcap-3, Iraq. The said parcel contained four pieces of trousers (pents), four shirt pieces, three T-shirts, two pieces of lower, two underwear, two undershirts, one piece towel and cosmetic products. The respondent had made the payment of Rs. 1,725 as charges and Rs. 212 as tax. After about 15 days the respondent contacted his friend in Iraq on telephone and came to know that the parcel had not yet reached him. Then the respondent contacted the appellants to know the whereabouts of the parcel but no satisfactory reply was given. The value of the articles in the parcel was Rs. 9,500. Hence the respondent filed the complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short "district Forum" ).

THE appellants filed written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. The appellants admitted that the articles of the respondent were booked by speed post on 27. 6. 2006 but the value of the articles was denied for want of knowledge. It was also pleaded that the Hoshiarpur office had sent every bag of speed post to Jalandhar and the speed post articles were delivered through Jalandhar only. The speed post articles of the respondents were accordingly despatched to Jalandhar on 27. 6. 2006 itself for onward delivery at the place of destination and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. The respondent tendered his affidavit Ex. C-1 and Postal Receipt Ex. C-2. On the other hand, the appellants tendered the affidavit of K. S. Bhogal, Senior Post Master, Hoshiarpur as Ex. R-1.

On the basis of these pleadings and the evidence, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 19. 1. 2007 and the appellants were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000 as compensation including litigation expenses.

HENCE the appeal. Record has been perused and the submissions have been considered.

THE submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the appellants are protected by Section 6 of the Post Office Act. Section 6 of the Post Office Act reads as under: "6. The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in 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 officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulent or by his willful act of default. " The perusal of the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, reproduced above, reveals that there is an exemption clause exempting the appellants from any liability but it has an exception clause also. It provides that if it is proved that such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage has been caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default then the exemption clause of Section 6 of the Post Office Act shall not be available to the post office. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Lucknow Development Authority v. M. M. K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=1994 (1) SCC 243 as under: "a public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. "

HON''ble National Commission in the judgment reported as Chief Post Master Delhi, G. P. O. v. Ram Avtar Gupta, III (2006) CPJ 107 (NC)=2006 (3) Con. LT 31, has adopted the same view.

IN the present case, it is not denied by the appellants that the parcel was sent by the respondents on 27. 6. 2006 and an amount of Rs. 1,937 was paid as speed post expenses. The parcel was to be sent to Iraq. The respondent has filed an affidavit that the registered parcel sent through Speed Post has not reached the addressee. The appellants have only taken the plea that they had sent the parcel to their Jalandhar Office but they have not taken further steps to ensure that the postal article reaches the addressee. Therefore, the appellants are proved to be deficient in service. However in the present case, the respondent has not made any allegation of fraud or wilful neglect or wilful default on the part of any of the officials of the appellants. Therefore, the exemption of Section 6 shall apply to the appellants.

The matter regarding the delay in speed post deliveries was considered by the Hon''ble National Commission in an un-reported judgment titled as Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Road Kurukshetra, Haryana and Ors. v. Vijay Rattan Aggarwal, Revision Petition No. 15 of 1997, decided on 18. 9. 2002'', in which it was held by the Hon''ble National Commission as under: "scheme of Speed Post has been provided under Indian Post Office Rules of 1933 by inserting Rule 66b. As noted above, these Rules are statutory. Complaints regarding any article booked under Speed Post (including demand for refund of fees in cases of non-delivery of articles within the stipulated time) are to be preferred within three months from the date of booking of the articles. Rule 66b was further amended by inserting two more sub-rules which provided that in case of delay of Speed Post article beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts from time-to-time compen-sation will be provided which shall be equal to composite Speed Post charges paid. It also provided that in the event of loss of Speed Post article or loss of contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of the composite fee Speed Post charges paid or Rs. 1,000 whichever is less. It would be thus seen that maximum compensation statutorily fixed is Rs. 1,000 which can be granted when there is a loss of Speed Post article or loss of its contents or even damage to the contents. Norms to which reference has been made have been provided in the circular dated 22. 1. 1999. Under Rule 83 letters or parcels containing coil, bullion, currency notes, etc. are to be sent by post only in insured covers. Under Rule 83a when a letter or parcel contains Government currency notes, bank notice, gold coins, etc. sender has to declare on the article the value of the contents and the time of despatch. In the case of Vijay Rattan Aggarwal (Revision Petition No. 15/97) no case has been made out that it was ever declared that letter contained two bank drafts. Even if it is so declared there is a limit of amount of compensation to be paid which is Rs. 1,000. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 we cannot go beyond the statutory provisions and grant compensation more than that what is statutorily fixed. A Consumer Forum is even bound by the terms of the contract howsoever oppressive these may be unless those terms are against public policy, illegal or void. "

IN view of discussion held above, the respondent can be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,000. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19. 1. 2007 is modified and the amount of compensation is reduced to Rs. 1,000. The respondent is awarded an amount of Rs. 1,000 as costs.

THE appellants deposited an amount of Rs. 2,500 with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. Out of this amount of Rs. 2,500, an amount of Rs. 2,000 be remitted by the registry to the respondent and the remaining amount of Rs. 500 plus the interest accrued on the amount of Rs. 2,500 if any, be remitted to the appellants by way of crossed cheques/demand drafts immediately. The arguments were heard in this case on 18. 3. 2008 and the orders were reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of heavy pendency and non-availability of the requisite Benches and infrastructure in the State Commission, for which the State Government has already been requested. Appeal disposed of.