SENIOR SUPDT. OF POST OFFICE vs K.S.YADAV

THE appellant, Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Chandigarh has filed this appeal against the order dated 15.2.2001 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I] in Complaint Case No. 1363 of 1998, K.S. Yadav, C/o Mohindra Book Depot, SCO No. 41, Sector 31-D, Chandigarh v. Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, SCF, 59, 60, Sector 30-D, Chandigarh.

THE District Forum-I has allowed the complaint case and awarded Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant, who was not only deprived of the parcel but also suffered inconvenience, harassment and embarrassment. A sum of Rs. 500/- is further awarded by the District Forum-I as costs apart from refund of Rs. 42/- which was paid by the complainant as fee prior to his parcel being entertained by the opposite party for further despatch. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum-I, the appellant, Sr. Superintendent of Police has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as the C.P. Act,) praying therein to set aside the order passed by the District Forum-I.

The respondent/complainant, Sh. K.S. Yadav filed complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act before the District Forum-I, making the avernments, inter alia, as under.

THE respondent/complainant had bought five sarees, five blouses and one pant piece from Dinesh Saree Centre, Sector 31, Chandigarh on 15.9.1997 for sending them to his sister at Azamgarh (UP) as gifts for marriage. Photo-copies of the receipt of purchase of articles have been placed on record. THE complainant sent these items through a Registered Parcel No. 2952 dated 18.9.1997 to Sh. Gaukaran Yadav, Village Bhiti, P.O. Phalhana, District Azamgarh (U.P). He also paid Rs. 42/- as the postal charges for sending the said parcel. Copy of the postal receipt is also placed on record as Annexure L-2. Later on the respondent/complainant found that the parcel neither reached to its destination nor was returned. He approached the Postal Department for inquiring into the matter with a prayer for locating the said parcel. THE Postal Department failed to locate the said parcel and informed the respondent/complainant vide letter dated 25.10.1998 that the parcel has been lost in transit. THE Postal Department vide their letter dated 19.11.1998 offered ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 100/- to the complainant, but the complainant refused to accept the same and filed a complaint in the District Forum-I, against the Postal Authorities for deficiency in service and prayed that he be paid compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,501/- because of the loss of the articles sent through the registered parcel. The District Forum-I dealt with the complaint case along with the reply filed by the appellant/opposite party and evidence adduced. The Postal Department in the written statement had pleaded that a sum of Rs. 100/- was opted to be given to the complainant on account of the compensation as per the rules because of the loss of the parcel, which was not accepted by the respondent/complainant.

UPON filing the appeal, notice of the appeal has been issued to the respondent, who put in appearance through one Sh. Jawahar Lal claiming himself the representative of the respondent on 31.5.2001. Thereafter, the appeal was fixed for hearing arguments for 24.7.2001. On 24.7.2001 none appeared on behalf of the respondent. In the interest of justice, the case was fixed for 23.8.2001 for arguments. On 23.8.2001 again none appeared for the respondent and as since, the Commission proceeded ex-parte to decide the case on merit. Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that District Forum-I, has erred in granting the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- as costs and refund of Rs. 42/-. He has further contended that the appellant had produced a copy of the order passed by the Commission in cases reported in I (1990) CPJ 28 (NC), I (1993) CPJ 141 (NC), 1997 (1) CPR 128 (NC) but the District Forum-I has neither considered these judgments nor cited in the order passed by it which resulted in miscarriage of justice. He further alleged that once the remedy under Indian Post Office Act is specifically barred, the Consumer Forums cannot grant the remedy. Thus, the order of the District Forum-I is without any jurisdiction. It has further been argued that the District Forum-I did not appreciate that the complainant ought to have sent the articles through the Insured Parcel instead of Registered Parcel because in case of loss, the person can get postal articles for the amount insured but in the instant case no such thing was done, hence no compensation is admissible to the complainant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, which reads as under : "The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of late, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by Central Government as hereinafter provided and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reasons of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he had caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.

The learned Counsel for the appellant referred to Clause 170 of the Post Office Guide which has been reproduced in para 3 of the preliminary objections of the reply and which reads as under: Clause 170 "The head of the Circle may grant compensation to the sender, or at his request to the addressee solely as an act of grace, and not in consequence of any legal liability compensation upto a limit of Rs. 100/- for the loss of any inland letter, packet or parcel or its contents or for any damage caused to it in course of transmission by post."

THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the instant case also, the registered articles sent are covered under the provisions of Clause 170 of the Post Office Guide as the same were sent by registered post as a packet or parcel. A reference was also made to Clause 182 of the Post Office Guide which specifically deals with "Insured Postal Articles" and the same has been extracted in para 4 of the preliminary objections. It has contended that since the case of the instant parcel sent by registered post covered under Clause 170 of the Post Office Guide and the said article was not registered as an insured article, the provisions of Clause 182 aforesaid of the Post Office Guide will not be attracted. For proper appreciation of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the provisions of Clause 182 of the Post Office Guide may be referred to, which runs as under : Clause 182 "Compensation will be payable to the sender of an insured postal article not exceeding the amount for which the article has been insured, for the loss of the postal article or any of its contents, or for damage caused to it in course of transmission by post, provided that the compensation in no case exceeds the value of the article or any of its contents lost or the amount of the damage caused, and provided that in the case of loss, the sender furnishes full particulars of the contents of the postal article and their values."

IN the instant case, as mentioned above, the respondent did not disclose the full particulars of the contents of the postal article and their value. The respondent got the packet/parcel registered and paid the charges of the registered post as Rs. 42/- which is mentioned in the impugned order as well. Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate appearing for the appellant further contended that the Government does not incur any liability under Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898 which has been referred to above in the earlier part of our order. The Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioner, New Delhi considered the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act in the case of The Post Master, Imphal v. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, I (2000) CPJ 28 (NC), and held that the person who has committed the offence can be sued for damage but no action will lie against either the Central Government or any of its offices vicariously that postage stamps have to be affixed but that is for augmentation of Government revenue. It is not in the nature of a price paid for the service. Similar view was expressed by the Hon''ble National Consumer Commission in the case of The Presidency Post Master & Anr. v. Dr. U. Shanker Rao., II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC), and it was held that the service 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 does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through the 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 of any commercial contract. It was further held that the Post Office could not be equated with a common carrier.

Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate submitted that it was in lieu of the provisions contained in clause 170 of the Post Office Guide that a sum of Rs. 100/- was offered to the respondent/complainant vide order dated 19.11.1989 [copy placed on record of the complaint file]. The sanction was to be valid for one year from the date of its issue. The respondent/complainant did not accept the same and instead he filed the complaint case before the District Forum.

HAVING carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned order, we find that the order passed by the District Forum-I awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs of the lost parcel and refund of Rs. 42/- paid as registration charges is contrary to the provisions of law as contained in Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act. The appeal has thus considerable merit and is allowed. The order of the District Forum-I is set aside. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 100/- as ex-gratia payment under Clause 170 of the post Office Guide to the respondent/complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.