Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs Bal Krishan

THIS order will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as both of them are directed against one common order passed by the District Forum, Mandi, dated 14.3.2000. By the said order, learned Forum below has disposed of two complaints of the respondents herein, namely, Shri Bal Krishan and Shri Durga Dass.

AS per the case of the respondents in their separate complaints, both are residents of a remote village in the interiors of District Mandi. They intended to appear in 10+2 examination in March, 1999, which was to be conducted by the Board of School Execution, Himachal Pradesh. With this end in view, both the complainants purchased Postal Order of Rs. 150/- each in September, 1998 from the local Post Office and after complying with the necessary formalities, sent all the relevant documents through registered letter on 22.9.1998 from Post Office, Pandoh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. In token thereof, they also obtained Postal Receipt No. 1901/2 and 3900 respectively from the said Post Office. They were, thus, under the bona fide belief that their registered letter would be received in the office of the Board of School Education, Dharamshala, District Kangra in due course. Then their wait for their respective roll numbers started. The examination, in question, was to commence from 4.3.1999. Ultimately, they kept on waiting for their respective roll numbers, which were never received by them and, thus, could not take the examination. However, they did appear before the Superintendent of Examination Centre on the date of commencement of examination i.e. 4.3.1999 and informed him about the sending of the registered letter along with relevant documents, and also requested him to permit them to sit in the examination by issuing the duplicate roll numbers, but their request was declined. This led to the filing of their respective complaints in which it was alleged that they had incurred a loss of Rs. 6,000/- each by taking coaching for 6 months as private candidates for the said examination and the same was rendered futile due to the wilful negligence/default of the Postal Authorities by not delivering the registered letter to the concerned address, as a result of which, they were not allotted their respective roll numbers. In this manner, they claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the loss of one year educational career, mental tension, torture and inconvenience suffered by them. The Board of School Examination being opposite party No. 1, denied having received the documents, postal order etc. from both the complainants. Therefore, no roll numbers were allotted or issued to them. It was admitted that the examination for 10+2 had commenced from 4.3.1999.

On behalf of other opposite parties, all being Postal Authorities, the maintainability of the complaint was questioned on the ground that there was a complete bar to the complaint under Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898. Various other objections of preliminary nature were also taken in the reply. On merits, it was denied for want of knowledge whether the complainants had sent the registered letter on 22.9.1998 from Pandoh Post Office addressed to the Board of School Education, on the ground that the complainants had not lodged any complaint about the non-delivery of the registered letter by approaching the Postal Authorities. The latter came to know of non-delivery of any registered letter on receipt of legal notice dated 4.8.1999 from the Counsel of the complainants.

THE learned District Forum, Mandi, in its detailed order, looked into the pleadings and evidence of the parties as well as it has dealt with the immunity claimed by the Postal Authorities behind Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898. It has come to the conclusion that the complainants in the present case have been able to satisfy the learned Forum below that they suffered damages due to the default (emphasis applied in the impugned order) on the part of the Postal Authorities when the latter failed to deliver the registered letter containing the relevant documents for sitting in the examination of 10+2 to be conducted by the Board of School Education. In these circumstances, the Postal Authorities as opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 have been ordered to pay to each complainant Rs. 168/- by way of refund of the postal order/registered letter charges and also Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 300/- as costs to each of the respondents as complainants. Hence, the present appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and we have examined the record. The only point raised before us and which requires consideration is regarding the immunity claimed by the appellants i.e. Postal Authorities in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, which is as follows : "6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery delay or damage-The Govt. shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery, or delay of, or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the (Central Government) as herein provide and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay and damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default."

In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of the National Consumer Commission in the case of The Post Master, Imphal & Ors. v. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, I (2000) CPJ 28 (NC)=Revision Petition No. 986 of 1996 decided on 2.12.1999. On the facts of that case, it has been held by the National Consumer Commission that the law is well settled by a long line of decisions of the English Courts, the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts as well as the National Commission itself that Section 6 ibid gives complete immunity to the Government and its employees except in the cases specified therein. It may be stated here that in the case before the National Consumer Commission, referred to above, a finding has been recorded that the complainants had made no allegations of any fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any one of the respondents.

IN the present case, however, vide para-12 of the impugned order, Section 6 has been rightly analysed as being in two parts. The first part absolves the postal department from any damage for loss in transit, or delay, loss, misdelivery of postal articles. However, the second part of the same is an exception to the general rule incorporated in the first part thereof. According to the second part, if the postal letter or article is not delivered due to fraud, wilful act, default of the postal employees, the Central Government would be liable to pay the damages. As already mentioned above, in the impugned order, there is a categorical finding that the complainants have been able to establish the default of the Postal Authorities in the present case. IN other words, the exception incorporation in Section 6 regarding the general exemption from liability by the Postal Authorities comes into play on the facts stated and proved by the complainants. IN this view of the matter, the decision of the National Consumer Commission, referred to above, does not apply in the instant case and the appellants cannot derive any benefit from the same. During the course of arguments before us, learned Counsel for the appellants has not been able to dislodge the categorical finding in the impugned order to the effect that in the present case the complainants suffered damages due to the default of the appellants. In these circumstances, the reliance placed on a reported decision of this Commission in the case of Vishwas Julka v. Union of India & Ors., latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 192, is also of no avail to the appellants. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in these appeals and both the appeals are consequently dismissed. Appeals dismissed.