Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs KAMDEO PRASAD ROY

-THIS appeal is directed against order dated 19. 12. 2007, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dumka, in Consumer Complaint No. 6 of 2007. By the impugned order opposite party-appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 as compensation to the respondent complainant within one month from the date of receipt or production of the order.

IN spite of notice having been served upon the respondent and granting sufficient time for appearance, none appeared on his behalf. Accordingly, we have heard Counsel for the appellant and perused the materials on record, including the order under challenge and this appeal is being disposed of after going through the materials on record. This appeal is time barred. As per office report, from the date of impugned order limitation for filing appeal expired on 10. 1. 2008, whereas it was filed on 14. 2. 2008. Delay in filing appeal has been explained in a separate petition, filed under Rule 8 (4) of the State Rules, wherein, it is stated that free copy of the impugned order was prepared/forwarded on 7. 1. 2008 and received by the appellant''s Counsel later on. Thereafter, some time was consumed in official formalities for obtaining sanction and approval for filing appeal. These statements remained uncontroverted. Hence, the delay is condoned.

The complainant''s case in brief was that he had sent a registered envelope vide R. L. No. 1556 dated 11. 2. 2005 from Dumka Head Post Office to Baroda (Gujarat), but the said registered envelope was not delivered to the addressee, Sri Om Prakash Roy of Baroda (Gujarat ). It was lost in transit and consequently the complainant-respondent could not get admission for higher studies and was also deprived of lots of opportunities for appearing in different competitive examinations for getting a job. Further case of the complainant-respondent was that on 15. 3. 2005 he had lodged a complaint to the Senior Superintendent Post Offices, S. P. Division, Dumka for non-delivery of the said letter and ultimately the opposite party sanctioned an amount of Rs. 100. 00 only as ex-gratia compensation vide sanction memo dated 17. 5. 2006. The said amount was not accepted by the complainant-respondent. Being dissatisfied with the action of the opposite party, the complainant filed the above referred complaint claiming compensation of Rs. one lac.

ACCORDING to the appellant, the Forum below erred in allowing the complainant a compensation amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 holding the Postal Department liable/negligent. In view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the appellant-Postal Department is not liable by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, unless it has been caused fraudulently or by wilful act or by default. Further it was contended that as per the provisions contained in Clause 170 of the Post Office Guide-Part-I the respondent is entitled to only the ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs. 100, which was offered to him, but he refused to accept the same, instead he preferred to file the above referred complaint. On careful perusal of all the materials available on record including the impugned order, we are to decide only whether the Forum below has erred in holding the appellant liable and allowing compensation amount payable to the respondent.

ADMITTEDLY the respondent had sent registered envelope vide R. L. No. 1556 dated 11. 2. 2005 from Dumka Head Post Office to Baroda (Gujarat) and the same was lost in transmission. It was not insured declaring its insured value. Hence, in our view, as per the provisions contained in Clause 170 of Post Office Guide-Part-I, the admissible ex-gratia amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 100 only was payable for the registered post. It was just and proper and was sanctioned to the respondent vide sanction memo dated 17. 5. 2006 by the appellant-department. Further in view of the provision of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, which gives almost complete immunity against the liability for loss in transmission and several decisions of National Consumer Commission and this Commission, the appellant-Postal Department cannot be held liable. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 19. 12. 2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dumka cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside and the complaint stands dismissed. In the result, the appeal is allowed, but without costs. Appeal allowed.