S.Saravanan vs DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE complainant is a holder of M.B.S.S., Degree. He passed the Primary Examination conducted by the National Board of Examination for Diplomate of National Board Certificate. He applied for the Final Examination to be held on 1st and 2nd of February, 1993 and paid the necessary fee. THE Hall-Ticket which was dispatched on 7.1.93 was received by him only on 3.2.93 and hence he could not sit for the examination. This amounted to gross deficiency in service and the complainant has come forward with a claim of compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The denied the allegations of deficiency and contended that the claim is barred under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1988.

Exhibits A1 to A8 and B1 to B3 are marked by consent. Proof affidavits are filed.

THE short question that arises for consideration is whether the claim is barred under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act? Point No.1 : Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act lays down : "The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to, any 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default."

The first part of the Section exonerates the Government from any liability for loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to the postal articles except so far as such liability is undertaken by the Central Government by express course. It is not the case of the complainant that any such liability has been undertaken by the Government and hence no claim against the Government is sustainable. The second part of the Section exonerates the officers of the Post Office from any liability unless the delay or damage was caused fraudulently or by his willful act or default. No such allegation has been made in the complaint. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act is, therefore, a bar to the maintainability of this complaint. The point has been held so by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in "Sub-Post Master, Tirupur & Another v. V. Ramakrishnan" (R.P. No. 120/92, dated 16.12.92).

IN the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed. No costs. Complaint dismissed.