POST MASTER, GENERAL, SECTOR 17 vs ADALAT CHAUHAN

IT is an appeal against the order dated 6.3.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

THE factual position with regard to the delay in payment of the money orders is not in dispute. THE only question with regard to which the learned Counsel for the appellants has made the grievance is that in view of the decisions of the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter called the Hon''ble National Commission) in case THE Post Master, Imphal & Ors. v. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, reported as I (2000) CPJ 28 (NC), and THE Presidency Post Master & Anr. v. Dr. U. Shanker Rao, reported as II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC), relief could not be given to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant). In this case the complainant had remitted a sum of Rs. 500/- on 12.2.2002; a sum of Rs. 500/- on 10.7.2002 payable to Chhotte Lal Chauhan of Village Mohan Patti, PO-Admuna, District Kushi Nagar (U.P.), whereas a sum of Rs. 2,200/- was remitted through money order on 12.8.2002 payable to Harun Master, Village Karsha, PO-Bubian, District Kushi Nagar (U.P.) but the amount remitted had not been received by the payee. It was only during the pendency of the complaint that the amount of Rs. 500/- remitted on 12.2.2002 and an equal amount remitted on 10.7.2002 had been received by the payee on 28.12.2002 i.e. after a period of about 10 months and 5 months respectively. The amount of Rs. 2,200/- was paid on 15.2.2003 to the payee i.e. after about 4 months.

The District Forum had allowed the complaint by treating the delayed payment as deficiency in service. Hence this appeal.

AS stated above, the learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that in view of the orders of the Hon''ble National Commission, no liability can be fastened on the appellants. In the above said authorities, a reference has been made to Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 Is reproduced hereunder : "The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery of delay or damage to, and 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 fraudulently or by his wilful act or default." It has been held by the Hon''ble National Commission under part 1 of Section 6 grants complete immunity to the Government for liability of loss/misdelivery/delay/damage to the postal articles. With regard to the second part, it has been held that an officer of the Post Office may be held liable for loss/misdelivery/delay or damage if it can be proved that he has caused the same by some fraudulent, wilful act or default. But in the latest judgment of the Hon''ble National Commission in the case of Post Master, Ranipet H.O. and Another v. N.B. Janakiraman, reported as 2002 (2) CON.LT 468, it has been held in a case of late delivery of money order that delay of two months in sending the telegraphic money order could be covered under a wilful act by referring to Section 48-C of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Section 48-C of the Indian Post Office Act, reads as under : "48. Exemption from liability in respect of money orders.-No suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against [the Government] or any officer of the Post Office in respect of- (a) ................... (b) ................... (c) the payment of any money order being refused or delayed by, or on account of, any accidental neglect, omission or mistake, by or on the part of, an officer of the Post Office, or for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or wilful act or default of such officer, or (d) .................. (e) ..................."

The relevant portion of the order of the Hon''ble National Commission in N.B. Jankiraman''s case (supra) is reproduced hereunder : "4. A bare perusal of Section 48-C would show that it does not give blank immunity to the appellants. If there is a fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any officer of the Post Office, appellants will certainly be liable. It may be that fraud or wilful act has to be proved by the complainant and so also the default. But when the default is so extensive like in the present case no proof or evidence on the part of complainant is required to prove the default on the part of the Post Office. As to what is the wilful or default, we need not go to any treatise on the interpretation of these terms or to any judgments for the purpose. We have to see from a consumer point of view as to what is wilful or default when interpreting a particular provision. As matter of fact default of two months in sending the telegraphic money order could also be a wilful act. No circumstance has been brought on record by the appellants to show that there has not been any wilful act or default on the part of any of its officers. For this gross act of default in not sending the telegraphic money order in time after receiving charges of the same, respondent has certainly suffered a great deal of anguish and mental harassment. The telegraphic money order was meant for his son who was at a far-off place in Uttar Pradesh. Instead of taking action against its officers for their default and wilful act, appellants have chosen to file this appeal questioning the order of the State Commission. We find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. Since the respondent is not represented, there shall be no order as to cost. "

We are bound by the latest authority of the Hon''ble National Commission. The case in hand is squarely covered by the order of the Hon''ble National Commission in N.B. Janakiraman''s case (supra). Admittedly in the cases mentioned above, there was delay of 10 months, 5 months and 4 months in making the payment of the amount through money orders by the appellants. Default of so many months in sending the money orders and the late payment thereof could also be taken as a wilful act or default of the appellants. In the case in hand also the default is so extensive that no proof or evidence on the part of the complainant is required to prove the default on the part of the Post Office. No circumstance has been brought on record by the appellants to show that there has not been any wilful act or default on the part of any of its officers. In view of the latest judgment of the Hon''ble National Commission in N.B. Janakiraman''s case (supra) and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is dismissed as meritless. Appeal dismissed.