Kumari Meena vs Post Master, Sub Post Office Awagarh

THIS revision petition has been filed by petitioner/complainant challenging the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ( ''the State Commission '', for short) in Appeal No.2011 of 2008 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of OPs no.1 and 2/ respondents no.1 and 2 herein against the order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the District Forum, Etah in Complaint No.93 of 2007. Vide its order, the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the petitioner against the respondents no.1 and 2 but dismissed the complaint against the OP. no.3/respondent no.3, the State Bank India in terms of the following directions: - ''''It is ordered to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 that to make the payment of Cheque No.831810 dated 23.12.2006 of amount of Rs.20,000/ - to the complainant with interest @ 9% annually from the date 20.01.2007 to till payment within one month from the date of order. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 also ordered to make the payment of amount Rs.3,000/ - as physical and mental harassment and amount of Rs.2,000/ - as cost of litigation within one month from the date of order. Complainant is directed to make available the above said cheque to the opposite party No.1 within 15 days from the date of order. ''''

BRIEFLY stated the facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner received the cheque dated 23.12.2006 drawn on the State Bank of India under the scheme of U.P. Govt., namely, ''''Kanya Vidhya Dhan Yojana '''' for poor girls, which was deposited by the petitioner in her Saving Account no.1515935 with the OP post office at Awagarh on 20.01.2007. This fact is not disputed by the OP postal authority. It is also not under dispute that the cheque, which was for an amount of Rs.20,000/ - was payable by the OP no.3, the State Bank of India, Tehsil Jasrana, District Firozabad (U.P.). After depositing the cheque with the OP post office for collection of the amount from the drawee bank, the petitioner/complainant kept on ennquiring about the crediting of the proceeds of the cheque into her saving account but could not get a satisfactory answer from the OP post office. Thereupon the petitioner gave a letter to the post office and also to District Magistrate, Etah and as per the averments made, no action was taken by the OP post office. Eventually, the cheque in question was returned by the OP post office after six months saying that the validity of the cheque had lapsed and obtained signature of the petitioner on plain papers on 01.06.2007 forcibly thereby indicating that the validity of the cheque had lapsed and as such, the proceeds could not be collected. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she had deposited the cheque with OPs no.1 and 2 on 20.01.2007 but because of carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP post office, the cheque was not presented to the drawee bank within its validity and hence she could not get the money under the scheme of the U.P. Government. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the post office, the petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint with the District Forum, Etah in which the petitioner prayed for direction by the District Forum to the OPs for payment of the cheque along with the compensation for her mental agony and harassment. The OPs filed their written statement opposing the complaint. The contention of the OP no.3 Bank was that no such cheque was received in their branch as alleged by the complainant/petitioner and as such, it had no liability for encashing the same and hence, the question of any deficiency in service on its part did not arise. The OPs no.1 and 2 admitted that the cheque in question was deposited with respondent no.1 post office on 20.01.2007. It was submitted by them that the cheque was forwarded by the Sub Post Master for collection on 20.01.2007 through the Post Master, Etah Post Office, who in turn further sent to Post Master Firozabad vide registered letter no.5096 dated 26.01.2007 but this registered letter did not reach its proper place and reached at other places like Faizabad, Azamgarh and Basti and eventually was received back with the Sub Post Office Awagarh from Basti Post Office vide registered post. In the meanwhile, since the validity of the cheque had expired, it was sent by the Post Master to the complainant/petitioner for revalidation and extension of the cheque date. It was contended by the OPs that the complainant instead of getting the cheque revalidated, filed the consumer complaint, which is liable to be dismissed because the complainant herself failed to redeposit the cheque after extension of its validity period. The collection of the aforesaid cheque could not be done because it could not reach the proper place for collection. It was submitted that it happened through an inadvertent mistake because of which the cheque went to wrong place rather than reaching at correct destination and during this period its validity expired. Denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs no.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

PARTIES filed their affidavits in support of their submissions and also led evidence before the District Forum. After hearing the parties and appraising the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum accepted the complaint in terms of its order reproduced above. As stated above, the OPs no.1 and 2 went in appeal before the State Commission challenging the order of the District Forum. The State Commission vide its impugned order reversed the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal while dismissing the complaint.

WE have heard learned Shri Viresh Kumar Yadav, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nikhil Jain, proxy counsel for Dr. Uday Veer Singh, Advocate for the respondents no.1 and 2 and Shri Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate for newly added respondent no.3, namely, State of U.P., through Chief Secretary. Learned counsel for respondent no.3, i.e., U.P. Government has submitted that the R3 is not in a position to revalidate the cheque because the funds, which were received under the scheme have already lapsed and there is no budget for making the payment of the cheque amount to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the present case pertains to deficiency in service on the part of the OP post office in collecting the proceeds of the cheque deposited with it for collecting and crediting of the amount into the saving account of the petitioner in time. In view of this, the State Commission has wrongly applied the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which provides that only if a willful act and fraud is proved against any employee of the post office, an order can be passed by Consumer Forum for deficiency in service caused and cost of litigation. He has argued that even in the written statement filed by the OP post office the plea regarding applicability of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act to the present case was not taken. He argued that Section 6 will apply only if the matter pertains to delivery of a postal article. This being the case of negligent handling of the cheque deposited by the petitioner with the OP post office which caused the delay in question leading to expiry of its validity, which deprived the petitioner from enjoying the proceeds of the cheque granted to her by the U.P. Government. He contended that since the U.P. Government is not in a position to revalidate the cheque, the OP post office in its capacity as the service provider to the petitioner who is its account holder, has to be squarely held liable for compensating the petitioner on account of its lapse and deficiency in service. He, therefore, submitted that the District Forum had rightly allowed the complaint of the petitioner and directed the OP post office to compensate the petitioner as per the directions vide its order. The impugned order, which is based on wrong appreciation of facts and incorrect application of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is perverse and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside and the order of the District Forum deserves to be restored. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 has supported the impugned order.

WE have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Admittedly, it is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the postal authority in regard to handling of a cheque deposited by the account holder in her saving account. This being the undisputed factual position, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which provides for exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of a postal article will not be applicable to the present case. In this context, it may be fair and just to have a look at provisions of Section 6, which may be reproduced thus: - ''''6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. - The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery 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 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 fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. ''''

KEEPING in view the above provision, we have no manner of doubt in our mind that the State Commission committed a grave error in accepting the plea of the OPs during the course of hearing the appeal and based on this proceeding to upset the finding of the District Forum and dismissing the complaint. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and restore the order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the District Forum. It is hereby directed that the respondents no.1 and 2 shall comply with the order of the District Forum within a period of one month failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of expiry of period of one month till the date of actual payment of the amount awarded by the District Forum to the petitioner. The revision petition is accepted in terms of the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs for this stage of litigation.