POST MASTER GENERAL, BHOPAL vs SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 11.7.2000 passed in Case No. 25/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chhatarpur (for short the "District Forum").

FROM the facts, it is evident that the respondent was successful in the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal for admission in PAT + PPAT 1999 Examination. The Dean, Krishi and Pashu Vigyan Sankay Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramoday Vishwavidyalaya, Chitrakoot, Satna sent a letter under certificate of posting to the respondent to appear in counselling on 15.11.1999. The letter was received in the Post Officer of Chhatarpur on 4.11.1999 which was delivered to the respondent on 22.11.1999 in the presence of Shiv Narain Pathak. On opening of the letter, it was found that the date for counselling has already been passed. On this, the respondent lodged a complaint and served a notice under Section 80 on 25.11.1999. The Superintendent of Post Offices sent a reply and asked the respondent to send the envelope till on 22.11.1999. Inconvenience caused was also regretted. An inquiry was also held wherein statements of the respondent and Shiv Narain Pathak were recorded, of which no decision was communicated to the respondent, the respondent filed the complaint, which was resisted. The District Forum having found deficiency in service on the part of the Postman, Chakkilal in delivering the letter on 22.11.1999 passed an order to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- within a period of two months failing which amount to carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and also to pay Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it was an ordinary letter under certificate of posting. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 exempts the Postal Authority from liability unless the late delivery or no-delivery is caused due to wilful act or default of the postal employee. Counsel cited a decision of the National Commission in case of Post Master, Imphal v. Jamini Devi Sagolband, I (2000) CPJ 28 (NC)=2000 NCJ 142, followed by this Commission in Appeal No. 576/1998 decided on 30.3.2000 (MPSCDRC), Chief Post Master v. Jairamdas Verma, and Appeal No. 96/1997 decided on 6.1.2000, Chief Post Master General, M.P. Dak Bhawan v. Ganga Prasad Kumar & Ors.

Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 lays down that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except insofar as such liability may in express terms is undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer or 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.

IN the facts of this case, in our opinion the Postal Authorities cannot be absolved. The respondent who passed successful examination for seeking an admission in Agriculture Courses was called for counselling and for that a letter under certificate of posting was sent to the Post Office, Chhatarpur on 4.11.1999 giving a date to the respondent to appear in Krishi and Pashu Vigyan Sankay Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramoday Vishwavidyala, Chitrakoot, Satna on 15.11.1999 at 10.00 a.m. According to the respondent, the letter was delivered to him on 22.11.1999 while according to the Postal Department there was no occasion not to deliver the letter on the same day or next day or thereafter. The respondent made a complaint and served a notice under Section 80. An inquiry was held wherein besides, the statement of the respondent, the statements of Shiv Narain Pathak was also recorded, who specifically stated that in his presence, the Postman delivered the U.P.C. letter which had a seal of receipt in the Post Office of 4.11.1999. The letter was opened before him wherein the counselling date was intimated to the respondent of 15.11.1999 which had already passed. Before the District Forum, the respondent has filed his own affidavit and the affidavits of Avinash Shukla, Shiv Narain Pathak and Arun Dev Khare. Arun Dev Khare has specifically stated that Chakkilal, Postman delivered the letter lately for the reason that the students related to officers of the post office were also candidates, therefore, with a mala fide intention and with ulterior object, the letter was delivered in the forenoon at 1.00 p.m. on 22.11.1999. The appellant in rebuttal except filing of the affidavit in support of the written statement of S.D. Vashishtha, did not file the affidavit of concerned Postman, Chakkilal or other evidence. IN such circumstances, in view of the clear allegations in the complaint, inquiry and affidavits before the District Forum, it is a case where the respondent has established that the late delivery was caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default of the concerned postman. IN such circumstances, in our opinion, the defence of exemption from liability under Section 6 of the INdian Post Office Act, 1898 is not available to the appellant. In view of the above, the Postal Authorities-appellant is directed to pay the amount as ordered by the District Forum with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. from 15.2.2000 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the interest would be payable at the rate of 15 per cent per annum.

HOWEVER, the Postal Authorities shall be at liberty to take appropriate action for recovery of the amount against the concerned erring postman. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with the record of the case. Appeal dismissed.