KANALA KODANDA REDDY vs SUPERINTENDENT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS

THE complaint C.D.C. 77/95 District Forum, Chittoor was filed against Superintendent, Department of Posts, Tirupathi, (2) THE Post Master, S.V. University Post Office, Tirupathi, and (3) THE Post Master General, General Post Office, Hyderabad claiming an amount of Rs.4,99,900/- as damages or compensation and for costs.

THE complainant, a Scientist in the Department of Anthropology, S.V. University, Tirupathi pursuant to a brochure issued by the International Symposium on Atherosclerosis organised by eminent Scientists on October 9th and 14th of 1994 at Central Canada sent a research abstract on 2.4.1994 by speed post by affixing stamps worth Rs. 400/- to the send Symposium. On enquiry he came to know that the abstract was not received by the Symposium Authorities in Canada. Alleging that due to the negligence of the Postal Authorities, the complainant lost a golden opportunity to attend a Symposium in Foreign Country, he estimated the loss suffered by him at Rs. 6 lakhs, but confined his loss to Rs. 4.99.900/- in the complaint. The opposite parties in their version admitted that the complainant booked a speed post cover on 2.4.1994 addressed to International Symposium on Atherosclerosis, Montreal, Canada and also made a complaint on 12.9.1994 about the non-delivery of the article. The complaint about loss of postal article has to be preferred within two months from the date of booking of the article and as the complaint was preferred after a lapse of two months, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act is a bar to maintainability of the complaint and the compensation claimed is quite exhorbitant.

No oral evidence was adduced by both the parties. The complainant filed Exs. A-l to A-8 and the opposite parties did not file any documents.

EX. A-l is the xerox copy of the speed post receipt. EX. A-2 is the complaint given to the first opposite party on 12.9.1994 by the complainant and EX. A-3 is the reply from the first opposite party. EXs. A-4 and A-5 are fax message and letter from Chairman, ISA to the complainant, EX. A-6 is copy of Form ''D'', EX. A-7is activity reports of Fax sent by the complainant, EX. A-8 speed post brochure. The Exs. A-l to A-8 clearly show that the complainant sent an abstract of research by speed post and it was not delivered to the addressee at Montreal, Canada.

THE District Forum held that delivery by speed post of an article is one mode of delivery out of other modes i.e. registered post, ordinary post, etc., and similar to that of the ordinary post and that, therefore. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act is a bar to maintainability of the complaint and it accordingly dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant. Relied on the decision of National Commission in the Post Master, Kachiguda Station HPO & Others v. G. Hanumantha Ready, in R.P. Nos 363 & 364/93 dated 24.3.1994, wherein it was held that in case of letters sent by speed post, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act is not a bar for maintainability of the complaint. Having regard to the above view of the National Commission, we hold that Section 6 is not a bar for maintainability of the complaint.

THE learned Counsel for the respondents submitted a notification issued by Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts dated 9.11.1995, wherein the Central Government made rules under Indian Post Office Act, 1933. It is next submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the complaint should have been made to the Postal Department within two months from the date of booking. In the instant case, the complainant made a representation after expiry of two months and, therefore, the complaint before the District Forum is not maintainable. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. THE period of limitation prescribed for filing the complaint under Section 24(a) of C.P. Act before the District Forum is two years from the date of cause of action and the abovementioned time limit of two months is on regard to departmental remedy. Hence we hold that the complaint is within time.

IT is next submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he suffered any damage in order to claim compensation of Rs. 4,99,900/-. IT is true that there is no evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the loss suffered by him. Whether the abstract sent by the complainant would have been accepted by the International Symposium on Atherosclerosis, is a matter of guess. IT was only in case the abstract is accepted, the Symposium will at its expense arrange for too and fro travelling expenses. IT, therefore, cannot be said that the abstract of the complainant would be accepted by the Symposium and the complainant therefore lost the opportunity of going to Montreal at Canada. The learned Counsel for the respondents also invited our attention to the notification of Ministry of Communications dated 9.11.1995, wherein in Part III under the Head "Inland Postal Articles", it was stated that in case of delay beyond the norms, compensation to be provided could be twice the composite speed post charge, and in the event of loss of articles or loss of contents or damages to its contents, compensation would be Rs. 200/-. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the complainant and having regard to the abovesaid rule, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 200/- for the loss of article.

Since the complainant spent about a sum of Rs. 400/- for speed post, we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 400/- being the costs incurred by him i.e. Rs. 600/- (Rs. 200/- + Rs. 400/-) with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 12.1.1995 till payment and costs of Rs. 200/-.

IN the result, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 600/- (Rupees six hundred only) with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 12.1.1995 till payment and also costs of Rs. 200/-. Complaint allowed with costs.