SUB-POSTMASTER vs PRIYAMBADA PATTNAIK

HEARD Mr. Mishra the learned Counsel for the Postal Department. The short question for decision is whether the order dated 6.12.1994 of the District Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela directing the present appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 300/- and costs of Rs. 100/- should be sustainable in the eye of law.

FACT is not disputed that the complainant sent a packet by ordinary parcel cost of which was Rs. 130/- addressed to one Kanak Manjari Pattnaik at Dhenkanal. It is also not disputed that the postal staff at the counter received this parcel for despatch and issued a certificate ''under certificate posting''. The Postal Authorities have not been able to prove that the allegation of the complainant that the addressee did not receive the packet in question is either false or incorrect. In other words we have to accept the finding of the District Forum that in fact the addressee did not receive the packet. We do not accept the argument that under such circumstances, the Postal Authorities should not be liable to compensate. Mr. Mishra however draws our attention to Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act read with Clause-31 of the Postal Regulation. He has also referred to a decision of the National Commission dated 5.4.1993 in the case of Postmaster General, Madras v. Dr. U. Sankar Rao, and also another decision of this Commission dated 29.4.1997 in C.D. Appeal Nos. 37/93 and 38/93 disposed of on 29.4.1997 in support of his above argument. We have carefully gone through the provisions and we have no quarrel over the proposition laid down in these cases. But the case before us is different one inasmuch as there is a certificate of posting which proves tht the Postal Authorities received the packet for despatch. There is no evidence from the side of the Postal Authorities whether in fact the packet was despatched and during the transit it was lost. Two possibilities cannot be ruled out. One is that the packet might not have been despatched at all from the Post Office and secondly the packet might have been lost/misplaced which within the custody of the Postal Authorities. We could have appreciated the argument of Mr. Mishra provided materials were that in fact are these the Postal Authorities despatched the packet which got lost in transit. Therefore, the provision of the section is not applicable so far the facts and cirsumstances of the case.

Now question is whether the compensation of Rs. 300/- should be sustained. Mr. Mishra pointed out that the cost of packet is Rs. 300/-, therefore, compensation of Rs. 300/- is excessive. We have appreciated his argument. Inasmuch as the complainant has come forward with a case that the article was not delivered to the addressee. The non-delivery of the packet to the addressee certainly must have caused mental agony to both the sender and the addresee. We, therefore, assess the loss at Rs. 100/-. The cost of Rs. 100/- awarded by the Forum is confirmed. We accordingly dispose of the appeal by modifying the order of the District Forum. Further we direct the Postal Authorities to remit the amount of Rs. 200/- to the complainant''s address to relieve her from the trouble of going for execution of the case. This should be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The appeal is allowed in part. No cost. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Appeal partly allowed.