RAILWAY MAIL SERVICES vs K.R.ANIL KUMAR

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Ernakulam, in O.P. No. 900/96. The opposite parties are the appellants.

THE complainant applied for the post of apprentice as Assistant Driver in the Railways in response to the advertisement which appeared in the news papers but the cover containing complainant''s application was returned. This cover carried postal stamps worth Rs. 3/- and it was duly stamped. However the addressee did not accept it on account of the fact that there is a stamp seal for excess amount. It was not disputed that the cover was duly stamped. THE Postal Department pleaded immunity based on Section 6 of the Post Office Act. THE District Forum did not accept this contention of the opposite party evidently because of the seal affixed on the cover indicating that Rs. 2/- was due. It is, therefore, clear that the letter was returned as a result of refusal by the addressee because there was stamp indicating an extra charge of Rs. 3/-. In the view that was taken by the District Forum it held that there is deficiency in service and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,500/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.

Two contentions were raised by the authorised representative of the appellant who appeared before us. (1) The department is protected under Section 6 of the Post Office Act. (2) It is not returned on account of insufficiency of stamp. However, the case of the appellant that it was not on account of insufficiency of stamp cannot be accepted, in view of the seal on the cover indicating that it was insufficiently stamped, and Rs. 3/- extra was due. The appellant has no case that it is really insufficient stamp.

COMING to the contentions based on the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Post Office Act, the District Forum referred to the decision of the National Commission in Superintendent of Post Offices v. Upovokta Suraksha Parishad, III (1996) CPJ 105 (NC), where the National Commission pointed out that this provision made in 1890 in the Indian Postal Act is totally antiquated and out of tune with the spirit of a democratic Government in a parliamentary system where all actions of the Government functionaries are subject to scrutiny and all such functionaries are accountable for any lapse or misdeed on their part in the discharge of their duty. It also pointed out necessity of a comprehensive review of the Indian Postal Act so as to incorporate suitable amendments and modifications to bring it in tune with the functioning of a democratic and accountable Government. In this case, the question to be considered is whether there is any wilful default or negligence on the part of the department in which case the officers are not protected. Affixture of a stamp indicating that the cover is not properly stamped when there is no insufficiency of stamp can only be considered as an act of wilful default or negligence. Viewed in that light, we are unable to say that the District Forum has erred in passing the impugned order. The complainant has lost the chance of applying for the post of apprentice as Assistant Driver in the Railways on account of the default of the department. In the circumstances we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. _____________