SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, BATHINDA DIVISION vs RESHMA GARG

THIS appeal is by the Superintendent, Post Offices, Bathinda challenging order of District Forum, Bathinda dated January 8, 1998 whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. October 22, 1994 till payment alongwith Rs. 1,000/- cost to the complainants Mrs. Reshma Garg and Rajiv Kumar Garg.

LACHMAN Dass was possessing 500 units of Unit Trust of India as allotted to him on September 2, 1992 vide Ex. C-2. Mrs. Reshma Garg, complainant No. 1 was declared as nominee of LACHMAN Dass. LACHMAN Dass executed a transfer deed in respect of these units in favour of his grand-son Rajiv Kumar Garg, complainant No.2. On October 22,1994 he sent aforesaid unit trust certificates for transfer in the name of Rajiv Kumar Garg through registered post vide receipt No. 216 (Ex. C-3/1) to Datamatics Financial Services Ltd., opposite party No. 2 through Superintendent, Post Offices, Bathinda Division, Bhaggo Road, Bathinda, Since such certificates were not delivered to the addressee, confirmation was sought from the Post Office regarding the registered letter. Reply was received on August 11,1995 (Ex. C-4) that the registered letter sent had been lost after its booking. The complainant Reshma Garg, being nominee could get duplicate share certificates. In the meantime, LACHMAN Dass died. Reshama Garg and Rajiv Kumar Garg, the alleged transferee filed the complaint before the District Forum. It may be observed that before that Datamatics Financial Services Ltd., an agency of Unit Trust of India who effect transfers reported that some of such certificates had already been transferred in favour of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. under the back-buy scheme. The parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum holding deficiency in rendering service on the part of Post Office, passed the impugned order. Since the certificate was sent through registered post and as per stand of the Post Office itself, the letter containing such certificates was lost after its booking, deficiency in rendering service in not delivering the registered letter to the addressee is writ large. Apart from that non delivery of parcel which was sent through registered post also amounts to negligent act.

The question for consideration is as to how much compensation the complainant is entitled on account of negligent act and deficiency referred to above. It is not a case where by loss of registered letter, the right of the complainant viz- a-viz the certificates stood wiped out. The duplicate certificates in case of loss of originals could be obtained and transferred according to law and rules. In that context the complainant could only be compensated for the loss suffered on account of delay, if any, in that process but not the value of the certificates as such. The District Forum was, thus, not justified in allowing compensation of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainants. To that extent the order of the District Forum is required to be set aside and we so order. Since the complainant was harassed and some difficulties were experienced, as the opposite parties, Unit Trust of India or their representatives have disposed of the share certificates, and on account of harassment and inconvenience faced, reasonable compensation is required to be fixed. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- is considered just compensation in this case apart from the cost of litigation of Rs. 1,000/- as allowed by the District Forum. Thus, while allowing the appeal, the order of the District Forum is modified. The appellant Post Office would pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainants to be shared equally. Appeal allowed.