SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, NAGARCOIL vs A.V. ARULSINGH

OF the four opposite parties, the opposite parties 1 to 3 against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum are the appellants. The case of the complainant is that he sent a registered cover to his superior officer on 16.12.1994 after payment of necessary charges. But the postal cover has been returned to him on 22.12.1994 with an endorsement "Not affixed stamp. So refused. Returned to the sender". The case of the complainant is that this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. His further case is that the cover contained important materials and therefore he sustained loss. On these grounds the complaint has been filed.

THE opposite parties 1 to 3 who are the officers of the Postal Department contended that since the registered letter in question was booked at Thuckalay Post Office which had a multi- purpose postage machine, no postage need be affixed on the cover and there was no need for any postage stamp on the cover in question. THE addressee had refused to take delivery of the cover and therefore it was returned to the sender with such an endorsement. In these circumstances, there was no non-delivery or wilful negligence or dereliction of duties. THErefore the complainant was not entitled to any compensation. It was further contended that the claim was hit by Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and therefore the opposite parties 1 to 3 were not liable to pay any compensation. The 4th opposite party filed a written version stating that he never refused to receive any cover.

The District Forum, on consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that without delivering the letter to the addressee it had been returned, and it cannot be said that the addressee refused to receive the letter, and there was some fraudulent act committed by some of the employees of the Postal Department. Then it held that the opposite parties 1 to 3 shall be liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. It further held that they must also pay a sum of Rs. 200/- as cost of the proceedings. The District Forum passed an order accordingly.

NOW in the appeal, after hearing the learned Counsel for the Postal Department and on going through the records, we are of the view that there is no material to hold that any of the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation. In the circumstances of the case, it appears that it must be true that the 4th opposite party had refused to receive the cover because it had not been affixed with stamps. Of course in his written version he says that he never did so. But as to what had happened really at that particular time we cannot believe what he has stated in the written version. Perhaps because the complainant has impleaded him as the 4th opposite party he thought it fit to deny it in his own interest. Apparently the cover in question does not contain any postage. The 4th opposite party could have received it. Perhaps he thought that if he received the postal cover in question he might be called upon to pay even the double postage and therefore he refused to receive it. There was no reason whatsoever for the Postman to return the cover with an endorsement as stated above. Thus considering, we hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties 1 to 3. It must also be remembered that the opposite parties 1 to 3 only have been impleaded and the Postman has not been impleaded but the 4th opposite party who has got nothing to do with this has been impleaded. Thus considering we find that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are not liable and as such the order of the District Forum cannot be upheld as correct. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.