R.S.DHULL vs Superintendent of Post Offices

THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar declining to intervene and relegating the appellant to any other competent authority.

THE facts are not in serious dispute. THE appellant had got dispatched a registered parcel containing eatable and clothes to his daughter Miss Renu Dhull living at Vientesa (USSR) on the 10th of December, 1990. THE firm allegation made was that the said parcel was never dispatched from Hisar and only 2 years later on the 26th of June, 1993 a Postman had come to him with the said parcel and demanded Rs. 219/- being the cost of that parcel. However, he had refused to accept the same as the parcel was in a sordid state and no contents thereof were available. Aggrieved against the respondent-Post Office appellant preferred a complaint claiming Rs. 4200/- as the value of the articles in the parcel alongwith interest and further compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony etc. On notice being issued the respondent- department took up the plea that since the parcel was dispatched in 1990, the relevant record has since been destroyed and a reply on its basis could not be made. However, it was averred that this parcel was received back from U.S.S.R. on the 14th of May, 1993 with the remarks of being unattended or undelivered and as per the rules the complainant was required to pay Rs. 219/- towards custom duty charges recoverable under Section 24-A of the Indian Post Office Act read with Section 3 of the Custom Act. It was the firm case that the parcel as a matter of fact had reached its destination but the addressee had refused to accept the same as she was not ready to pay Rs. 219/- towards custom duty charges therefor. The complainant-appellant filed a replication reiterating his stand and taking the curious plea in the consumer jurisdiction that the Custom Act, 1878 and the Indian Post Office Act are unconstitutional, null and void and are not binding on him.

During the course of the proceedings before the District Forum the parcel was produced and opened and several items were recovered there from which were claimed by the complainant. The District Forum observed as follows : - "Now there is no dispute that said parcel had been containing several items and the same have been shown to the complainant who now accordingly stands discredited as it has been alleged by him in para-9 of the complaint that parcel is in a sordid state and nothing was available therein. Now several items are available therein." Further the District Forum took the view that the respondent-Post Office was claiming immunity and further the relevant records had been destroyed and the complainant-appellant was not having any receipt towards the payment of booking and payment of charges etc. Consequently it declined to intervene in the matter and disposed of the claim in the terms noticed at the very outset.

MR. R.S. Dhull, who projected his appeal in person, being a lay man, was widely off the mark with regard to the limitation of Consumer jurisdiction. It was first sought to be argued that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act which was relied upon by the respondent for immunity was ab initio, void, and in any case the same was now volatile of the Constitution & must be struck down. The submission aforesaid even though projected with great vehemence and persistence has only to be noticed and rejected within this jurisdiction. It is somewhat manifest that it is not the province of the redressal agencies under the Act to pronounce upon the constitutionality of any provision. Nor is it possible for them to declare the existing provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act as void, ab initio, or not enforceable, even though it continues to exist on the statute book. We are inclined to believe that the appellant was somewhat misdirecting his energy in seeking a relief of this nature before this Commission. Obviously enough the proper jurisdiction for assailing the validity and constitutionality of statutory provisions is either the High Court or the Supreme Court and not the redressal agencies created under the Consumer Protection Act. The persistent submission of the appellant must, therefore, be rejected.

IN all fairness we must also notice the vehement reliance of Mr. Dhull on the recent landmark case of the Supreme Court in III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC), Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta. He had extensively read out the passages there from in a vain attempt to buttress his case. With respect we are wholly unable to see how either the ratio of the aforesaid case or observations therein are relevant to the present case in terms of its peculiar facts which have been noticed by the District Forum, and particularly of Section 6 of the Post Office Act to which not the least reference was made by the Supreme Court in the said case. IN our view the said authority is entirely wide of the mark and the appellant''s reliance thereon is wholly misplaced. Lastly as an argument of desperation Mr. Dhull had argued that Section 6 of the Post Office Act was not applicable to his case and reliance was also sought to be placed on I (1992) CPJ 71=1992 (2) CPC 56, The Benz Trading Company, New Delhi & Anr. v. Modern Car Scan Centre (P) Ltd. Hissar & Ors. We must confess our inability to appreciate the curious argument of the appellant that a provision like Section 6 of the Post Office Act which is universally attracted would not apply in the case of the appellant. Neither principle nor precedent could be cited for this novel proposition. Equally the case of The Benz Trading Company, New Delhi & Anr. v. Modern Car Scan Centre (P) Ltd. Hissar & Ors. (Supra) is plainly distinguishable. Therein the primal issue was whether the redressal agencies under the Act could grant interest on the equitable grounds or alternatively in lieu of compensation under Section 14 of the Act. The said question in our view does not even remotely arise in the present proceedings.

IN the end we must inevitably record the firm stand of Mr. M.M. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent-department enjoys immunity by virtue of Section 6 aforesaid, buttressed by the binding precedent of the National Commission in 1993 CPC 694, The Presidency Post Master General Post Office, Madras & Anr. v. Dr. U. Shankar Rao.

THERE is obvious merit in the aforesaid submission. However to appreciate the same provision of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act may be noticed in extenso : - "The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to and postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as 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."

Since the issue is covered by precedent it is unnecessary to elaborate it any further. It suffices to mention that in the aforesaid case of The Presidency Post Master General Post Office, Madras & Anr. v. Dr. U. Shankar Rao (supra) whilst interpreting the aforequoted Section 6, it was observed as follows : - "The services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. Establishing the Post Offices and running the postal service the Central Government performs a governmental function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for the article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges imposed by the State for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier. We are of the opinion that both the claim petitions referred to above are not maintainable in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. As noticed earlier there is no allegation that the loss, misdelivery or delay occurred on account of fraudulent or willful act of any particular postal employee."

The aforesaid ratio concludes the matter against the appellant. However in passing we also mention that this Commission had earlier occasion to interpret very said provision and came to an identical conclusion in I (1994) CPJ 81, Senior Superintendent Post Offices & Anr. v. Balbir Singh. Yet again this Commission had occasion to interpret the similar provision in Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act in Union of India and Others v. Kumar of Ambala City, 1993 CPC 397. It was held therein that the said Section conferred absolute immunity to the Government against any loss or damage or non-delivery of a telegraphic message.

For the somewhat detailed reasons recorded above this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Nevertheless we decline to burden the consumer-appellant with any costs. Appeal dismissed. _______________