Ravinder Nath Upadhya vs Supdt. Of Post Offices Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 3303/2006 - Sr. Supdt. of Post Office and Anr Vs. Ravindra Nath Upadhya by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner had sent registered letter by post on 22.12.2005 in which draft of Rs.25,000/ - was despatched which was not delivered to the addressee. Complainant made oral complaint and written complaint, but no action was taken. Even after legal notice dated 20.2.2006, no steps were taken in redressing grievance by OP. Draft of Rs.25,000/ - was sent for investment in the Company which could not be made. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that after search they came to know that registry has been misplaced. It was further submitted that draft should have been sent as insured and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.26,000/ -. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner ad admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as registered letter containing draft of Rs.25,000/ - did not reach to addressee, learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be admitted.

AS per allegations in the complaint draft of Rs.25,000/ - was sent by complaint to the addressee through registered post. Admittedly, it was not insured. If complainant was sending draft in the letter, he should have sent it as insured letter and in the absence of insured letter; OP is not under liability to reimburse any amount. Next question is whether respondent is entitled to protection under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act reads as under: ''''6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far a such liability may in express terms by 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 willful act or default. '''' (Emphasis supplied)

PERUSAL of aforesaid provision makes it clear that respondent cannot be held liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless it has been caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default of respondent. Perusal of complaint clearly reveals that petitioner has nowhere pleaded in the complaint that loss of postal article was due to fraudulent act or wilful act or default on the part of respondent. Thus, it becomes clear that petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved loss or misdelivery of the registered article due to fraudulent wilful act or default on the part of respondent and in such circumstances, as per provision of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, respondent cannot be held responsible for any liability.

COORDINATE Bench in R.P. No. 433/2013 - Ajaypal Vs. Post Office, Railway Station decided on 17.7.2013 and R.P. No. 4574/2012 Malkait Singh Vs. The Sudtt. Head PO & Anr. decided on 16.8.2013 has dismissed complaints after providing shelter of provision under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. In the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.