SUB POSTMASTER, PALAPURAM vs UNNIKRISHNA PANICKER

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Pallakkad, in opposite party No. 11 of 1997. The opposite parties are the appellants.

WE heard the authorised representative of the appellants. The case of the complainant is that he is an astrologer by profession and he used to send letters and articles to his clients in Tamil Nadu. On 12.1.1996 he sent a V.P.P. for value of Rs. 513/-. This did not reach his client. The opposite party offered Rs. 100/- as compensation. But he refused to accept it and approached the District Forum for compensation.

The opposite parties filed a version pleading immunity under Section 6 of the Post Office Act. The District Forum did not accept it and held that there is wilful default on the part of the opposite parties and in that view passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 513/- and also a compensation of Rs. 100/- which is inclusive of cost.

FEELING aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred. The authorised representative submitted that the department has got immunity under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. Recently the National Commission had occasion to consider the question in Superintendent of Post Offices & Others v. Upovokta Surakshya Parishad, III (1996) CPJ 105 (NC). The National Commission pointed out Section 6 was incorporated in the Post Office Act in 1890 and it is totally antiquated and out of tune with the spirit of a democratic Government in a parliamentary system where all action of the Government functionaries are subject to scrutiny and all such functionaries are accountable for any lapse or misdeed on their part in the discharge of their duty. The National Commission also held that it is time that a comprehensive review of the Post Office Act is undertaken so as to incorporate suitable amendments and modifications to bring it in tune with the functioning of a democratic and accountable Government. It further held that not doing something what one ought to do is also an act of wilful default and therefore it covered a wilful act mentioned in Section 6 of the Post Office Act.

IN the light of this decision it is difficult to hold that there was no wilful act or default committed by the department. There is no dispute with regard to the sending of the articles by VPP. Admittedly it did not reach the destination and the opposite parties were not able to trace out or to explain how the article was lost. The District Forum has only ordered to pay Rs. 513/- which is stated to be the value and also a compensation of Rs. 100/- which includes cost. IN the circumstances it cannot be said compensation awarded is on the high side. We therefore dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.