South Eastern Roadways vs STATE HANDLOOM SOCIETY

THESE two appeals arise out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai Dated 12.5.93 in O.P. 127/92. The second Opp. Party is the appellant in A.P. 303/93 while the Opp. Parties 3 & 4 are the appellants in A.P. 317/ 93.

THE first Opp. Party purchased from the complainant Sarees worth about Rs. 43,086/-. THE complainant sent the consignment through the lorry of the second Opp. Party and on payment of the freight charges of Rs. 586/-. THE lorry receipt was issued in favour of the complainant and sent by Registered Post to the fifth Opp. Party, Allahabad Bank to be redeemed by the consignment on payment of the bill amount and then take delivery of the consignment. THE complainant did not receive any acknowledgement from the Allahabad Bank. He subsequently understood that the cosignment has taken delivery by the first Opp. Party from the second Opposite Party at Naini Branch instead of at Pratapgarh to which the consignment was sent. He therefore filed this complaint against all the Opp. Parties. The first Opp. Party who is the real consignee remained absent. The Opp. Parties No. 2 the Carrier contended that the original consignment bill duly endorsed by the Allahabad Bank was presented before it at Naini Branch which is the transshipment place and the consignment was delivered to the first Opp. Party. The Opp. Parties 3 & 4 who are the postal officials claimed that the registered post containing the consignment note has been duly delivered to the 5th Opp. Party Bank. The fifth Opp. Party contended that the cover was not received by it.

It transpires that the cover containing the consignment note has been purloined during the transit that a false endorsement made purported to be by the Allahabad Bank thereon and the consignment has been taken delivery of obviously by the first Opp. Party who has remained absent. The District Forum held that the Allahabad Bank was not responsible for it, which never received the registered cover and the endorsement found in the original consignment was forged one. The District Forum accordingly passed order for compensation against the Opp. Parties 1 to 4. It is this order that is challenged in the appeal by the 2nd Opp. Party by its appeal in A.P. 303/93 and the Opp. Parties 3-4 by their appeal in A.P. 317/93.

THE learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties 3 & 4 who are the Postal officials relies upon Sec. 6 of Indian Post Offices Act. Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act runs thus: "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 be 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 this wilful act or default."

In Presidency Post Master-General, Post Office, Madras v. Dr. V. Sankar Rao and the Senior Superintendent of Post Office v. Consumer Rights Protection Council (Revision Petitions 175 and 247 of 1993 dated 15.4.93, the National Commission held that by virtue of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act no claim will lie against the Postal Department or its officers merely on the ground that there has been loss misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by the Postal Department unless the same has been caused fraudulently by the Officer complained against of the Post Office or by his wilful act or any default. THEy are entitled to Statutory Protection under Sec. 6 of the Act. THE National Commission has gone to the extent of saying that the services rendered by the post office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability and in establishing the post offices are running the postal services, 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 said decision is binding of us. Under Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act no officer or the post office shall incur any liability for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. THEre is no evidence on this aspect. THE claim against the Opp. Parties 3 &4 who are the appellants in A.P. 317/ 93 must therefore fail. The appellant in A.P. 303/93 is the carrier. It has delivered the consignment to the first Opp. Party on the basis of the production of the original consignment note with the endorsement made by the Allahabad Bank. The said endorsement is now found to be a forgery, but the second Opp. Party cannot be expected to find out whether it was a forged endorsement; it had no reason to suspect the genuineness of the endorsement, when the original consignment is produced to that endorsement. The second Opp. Party cannot therefore be imposed with the liability for delivering the consignment to the person who has presented the consignment note with the endorsement by the Bank. It is urged by the complainant and this argument has found favour with the District Forum that the consignment had been delivered at Naini Branch instead of at Pratapgarh. It is explained by the second Opp. Party that in case of urgency the consignment used to be delivered at Naini branch which is the trans-shipment place and there was therefore no deficiency of service on the part of the second Opp. Party in delivering the consignment to the consignee under the original consignment note at Naini. This contention of the second Opp. Party is entitled to acceptance. We are therefore unable to find any deficiency of service on the part of the second Opp. Party also. The order against the second Opp. Party cannot also stand.

THE first Opp. Party alone shall pay the value of the consignment of Rs. 42,500/- with interest thereon at 18% p.a. from 11.12.91 till payment and costs of Rs. 150/-. He has not preferred any appeal. In the result both the appeals are allowed and the order of the District Forum so far as the Opp. Parties 2 to 4 are concerned is set aside. The award will stand so far as the first Opp. Party is concerned. There will be no order as to costs in these appeals. Appeals allowed.