SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, SOUTH CALCUTTA vs SIPRA PAL

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 26.8.1996 passed by the Forum in Case No. 1749/96. By the order appealed against a sum of Rs. 10,000/-was awarded as compensation to the complainant for failure of the opposite party in affecting delivery of an ordinary postal article to the complainant.

THE case of the complainant was that she passed B.Sc. with Chemistry (Hons.) in 1993 from the University of Calcutta with good marks. In pursuance of an advertisement published by opposite parties i.e. the L.I.C.I. she applied for the post of Assistant in Clerical Cadre. OP-3 sent a Call letter to the complainant on 18.2.1995 through a Bombay Post Office. THE written examination was scheduled to be held in Calcutta on 2.4.1995 but the said Call letter was delivered to the complainant by OP-2 on 7.4.1995. THE complainant could not appear in the written examination because of delayed delivery of the Call letter and thereby she was deprived of the chance of taking the examination for appointment in the Clerical Grade. THE complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of Ops Consequently, she approached the Forum claiming compensation. The case was contested by the OPs by filing written version wherein it has been claimed that the complainant was not entitled to get any compensation in view of the restrictive provision contained in Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. It has been claimed that the Postal Authorities are merely discharging the Governmental statutory obligations towards the citizen and they do not enter into any contract with the citizen for the delivery of postal articles. According to the OPs there is no time limit for delivery of un-insured and un-registered postal Articles and as such the case of the complainant should not be entertained.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Forum directed the OPs to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. The Forum observed that this amount of compensation is a consolation to the complainant and it would also serve as a caution to the indifference and irresponsible attitude and activities on the part of the Postal Authorities.

FEELING aggrieved by the decision of the Forum the Postal Department has appealed. It is contended that since the postal article was sent by ordinary Post, no record is maintained to know the movement of the said article during transit from one place to another. According to the Postal Authorities, the Department is free from any liability for delay in delivery as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act unless the loss was occasioned due to some fraudulent or wilful act or default on the part of the Postal Department and/or its employees. The Postal Department has advanced an argument that they enjoy complete immunity from any action, whatsoever, for any loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1890. It should be apt to quote Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1890. "6. The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in sofaras such liability may, in express terms, be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided and no office 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 wilful act or default."

In this connection, the observation of the Hon''ble National Commission reported in 1997 (1) CPR 2 is worth quoting : "In a number of cases we have noticed that the Postal Department has been taking shelter under the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act which were enacted as far back as 1890 when the then Government of the day acquired total immunity for any action of the Postal Department resulting in a loss to the consumer. In fact, through this section, the then Government made the Postal Government totally immune from any accountability to the people whom it was serving for consideration, even if such service was subsidised in respect of certain categories of letters and postal articles, etc. This provision made in 1890 in the Indian Postal Act is totally antiquated and out of tune with the spirit of a democratic Government in a Parliamentary system where all actions of the Government functionaries are accountable for any lapse or misdeed on their part in the discharge of their duty. We, therefore, feel that it is time that a comprehensive review of the Indian Postal 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 is not known whether any comprehensive review of the Indian Postal Act was done and suitable amendments and modifications were made in the said Act so as to bring it in tune with the functioning of a democratic and accountable Government. Anyway, the patent fact is that the postal article was posted as frunked article by LI.C.I. on 28.2.1995 from Mumbai. The said postal article was not lost but there has been delayed delivery of the same and in fact the letter was delivered to the complainant on 7.4.1995. In the Meantime, the date of examination which was scheduled to be held on 2.4.1995 was over and the complainant could not take the examination. Resultantly, she lost an opportunity to sit for examination. The complainant has produced documents before the Forum to prove that registered as well as ordinary letters posted in Mumbai and meant for delivery in Calcutta reach the addressee within a period of 4 to 9 days. In the present case, this call letter took 46 days to reach the addressee. The complainant is the beneficiary. The sender of the postal article has paid due charges. It is expected that the article would be delivered to the addressee within a reasonable period. This is a patent default on the part of the Postal Authority. In this connection the observation of the Hon''ble National Commission in paragraph 7 of the judgment may be referred to which reads as under : "Not doing something what one ought to do is also an act of will and, therefore, covered by "wilful act" mentioned in Section 6 as one of the circumstances, where, the liability can be fixed on the Postal Department and its functionaries."

IN view of the above observation of the National Commission we think that in the present circumstances the Postal Department cannot take shelter under Section 6 of the INdian Post Office Act, 1890. However, we feel that the compensation of Rs. 10,000 / - is somewhat on the higher side taking into account the attending circumstances. We feel, however, that a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- will meet the ends of justice and we award a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant. The order of the Forum in modified to this extent and the opposite party viz. the Postal Authorities are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period one month from this date. With this observation, the appeal is, disposed of. Appeal disposed of.