POST MASTER vs LAKSHIMI

THE appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore dated 16.8.93 in O.P. 167/92. THE opposite parties are the appellants.

THE complainant has applied to the Teachers Training School at Thirukovilur for admission for the year 1992-93. THE school has sent a communication to the complainant on 29.9.92 by registered post informing the complainant, the date of interview as 12.10.92. This registered letter has been delivered to the complainant only on 26.10.92. She could not therefore, appear for the interview and did not get the admission for that year. Alleging deficiency of service she has filed this complaint claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The opposite parties filed separate counter statements contending that the address was not clear and so the registered post could not be delivered in time.

The District Forum found that there was deficiency of service and negligence and directed the opposite party to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. It is this order that is the subject matter of this appeal.

THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the decisions of the National Commission in THE Presidency Postmaster, Madras v. Dr. V. Shankar Rao and THE Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. Consumer Rights Protection Council (R.P. 175 and 247/93 dated 15.4.93) the National Commission has relied upon Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act which runs as follows: "THE Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to, and 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 office of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default."

As per Section 6 it is no doubt true that no claim will lie against the Postal Department merely on the ground that there has been loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by the Postal Department. THE said Section further lays down that no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason or any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. It follows if there is any fraud or wilfil act or default on the part of any postal official he will be personally liable therefor. We shall now find whether there is any such fraud, wilful act or default on the part of any of the opposite parties. We can straight away point out that it is not possible to hold the opposite parties 1& 3 of any default. The question before us is any about the second opposite party R. Veerasamy, concerned Postman of Veedalur Village. The registered letter under Exh. A1 which has been received at Veedalur Post office on 1.10.92 with Exh. A2 cover, but it has been delivered to the complainant on 26.10.92. The address given in Exh. A2 cover is: It has been received at Veedalur Post office on 1.10.92 but it has been delivered to the complainant only on 26.10.92. Exh. A3 is the explanation given by the second opposite party Postman R. Veerasamy in his own handwriting that he has received the registered letter on 1.10.92 and there is no C/o address or W/o address and hence there was delay in delivery. This explanation is not correct. Because in Exh. A2 cover it is clearly stated that the addressee is D/o Ramalingam. The complainant has been examined as PW1 before the District Forum and she has told that Exh. A4 postal acknowledgment has been received by her to her address, even though her father''s name has not been mentioned therein. This Exh. A4 postal acknowledgment has been delivered to the complainant by the very same postman. Then there is another Exh. A6 registered letter received by the complainant to the same address even before Exh. A2 and this Exh. A6 letter has also been delivered to the complainant by the same postman R. Veerasamy. Exh. A5 and A7 are letters to the complainant''s brother had mother to the same address. It is obvious therefore, that the second opposite party fully know about the complainant and her address and has deliberately with-held the registered letter with himself till 26.10.92 more than 25 days before he delivered it to the complainant on 26.10.92. The said Veerasamy has been examined as RW1 and has admitted in the cross examination that he knew the complainant''s mother, he knew that Lakshimi has been living in that village for more than 3 years, he also knew about her marriage. He has also admitted that he has delivered posts to the complainant previously. We are therefore convinced that this inordinate delay in the delivery of Exh. A2 cover containing Exh. Al communication is a wilful act. The second opposite party is therefore liable for deficiency of service and negligence in not delivering the registered cover to the complainant in time.

THE complainant has claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, but the Forum below has awarded Rs. 10,000/-. This, in our view seems to be excessive. We find that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- will be sufficient to meet the end of justice. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, the order of the District Forum so far as the opposite parties 1 & 3 are concerned, is set aside, the order against the second opposite party, postman is modified and the compensation awarded is reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. There will be no order as to costs throughout. Appeal partly allowed.