POSTMASTER, MANNANCHERY vs D. PRATHAPAN

THE Post Master, Mannancherry P.O., Alappuzah, the opposite party in O.P. No. 50/95 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha is the appellant. THE appeal is against the order of the District Forum dated, 24.8.95 allowing a com pensation of Rs. 1000/- and cost of Rs. 250/- against the appellant.

THE complainant''s case is that he applied for a job as circulation agent in response to which he was invited for an interview on 17.1.95 at 12.30 p.m. THE letter reached the Mannancherry Post Office on 13.1.95. But it was delivered to him only on 17.1.95 at 3.15 p.m. because of which he could not attend the interview and consequently lost a fair chance of obtaining a job. He is an unemployed educated youth. But for the deficiency and negligence on the part of the Postal Department it would have been possible for him to earn a living. He approached the District Forum claiming compensation. The opposite party appeared and filed version admitting the receipt of the letter in the post office on 13.1.95. The postman could not deliver it on that day due to pressure of work. He went on leave from 14.1.95 to 16.1.95 and an outsider worked as his substitute. The outsider could not deliver the letter due to his inexperience. When the regular postman rejoined duty on 17.1.95 there were a lot of letters in deposit pending delivery. With the help of the outsider the postman delivered all the letters including the one addressed to the complainant. On receipt of the complaint from him enquiry was made and the Postman was transferred and further disciplinary action was taken against the erring postman. It was also contended in the version that the Postal Authorities have complete protection under Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898. Under that section they have immunity from any claims.

The District Forum after assessing the facts observed and held that the protection provided under Section 6 is intended for the benefit of those who have committed bonafide mistake and in this case the employees who were guilty of dereliction of duty and callous indifference in the performance of their function are not entitled to any protection and awarded compensation as indicated above.

THE opposite party aggrieved by the order has come in appeal. We perused the available records and heard arguments. THE facts as stated in the complaint are not disputed by the appellant. It was argued by the appellant that the complainant is not a consumer as she has not hired any service for a consideration. In support thereof the decision reported in II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC); Presidency Post Master v. Sankar Rao, was cited. In that case the National Commission held that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act the complaint is not maintainable. THE services rendered by Post Offices are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. In establishing the post office and running the postal service the Central Government performed a Governmental function and the Government also not engage in a commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post. THE post office cannot be equated with a common carrier. THE decision reported in 1991 (2) KLT 500, Union Bank of India v. Union of India was also cited to elucidate the meaningful ambit of Section 6. It was pointed out before us that the National Commission in its Judgment dated 15.4.93 in the Revision Petition No. 175 of 92 had made clear that Section 6 of the Post Office Act has not been derogated by Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. In other words Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act does not override Section 6 of the Post Office Act. In short, it was contended that the officers of the Postal Department have total immunity in so far as it has not been proved that the delay occurred as a result of wilful negligence of fraudulent conduct of any officer. After considering the decisions cited and the ambit of Section 6, we are prone to agree with the finding of the District Forum. The call letter admittedly reached the Mannancherry Post Office on 13.1.95. The justification for non-delivering is pressure of work. The appellant has not produced any evidence to establish this fact. No affidavit has been filed by any officer to support the contention. Admittedly there was a substitute inducted in the place of the postman who was on leave from 14.1.95 to 16.1.95. The lame excuse for non-delivery of the letter on those days is the inexperience of this substitute. Clearly there is wilful and gross negligence on the part of the appellant in employing a person to deliver letters who is so inexperienced and who could deliver a letter which was with him for delivery for three days. There is no contention for the appellant that the address of the complainant in the call letter was erroneous or incomplete. It also remains a fact that the real postman entered on duty after leave on the 17th. Even so he did not care to deliver the letter which came to him on the 13th on priority in the morning. He delivered it only at 3.15 p.m. by which the time fixed for the interview was over. We do not feel that the appellant can take shelter under Section 6 of the Post Office Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. What is saved under Section 6 is the liability for the loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post. In the present case the article was lying with the post office from the 13th onwards for four full days without being delivered. This in our view can happen only as result of wilful negligence. The Postal Authorities are liable in case of wilful neglect. Wilful neglect is neglect without just cause or excuse. It can also be disregard to a plain or mainfest duty in the performance of which the person injured has any interest. We have no hesitation to say that the appellant acted with callous indifference. We do not attribute any bad motive or intend to defraud the addressee. But even so the complainant has been damnified because of the wilful neglect and indifference of the appellant. In the circumstances we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. We confirm the order of the District Forum directing the appellant to pay Rs. 1000/- by way of compensation and pay Rs. 250/- as cost in the District Forum. The appellant is also liable to pay 12% interest on Rs. 1000/- from the date of the order of the District Forum viz., 24.8.95. The appeal is dismissed however without costs. It is open to the Postal Department to realise the amount from the erring Officer of the department if the department so desires. Appeal dismissed.