AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhawani Singh, Chief justice.
This Appeal is directed against the order of Jammu and Kashmir State Consumers Protection Commission (hereafter for short Commission) dated
July 01,1996 arising out of the Complaint No. 7/1992.
Complainant states that after obtaining Law Degree, he prepared himself for Indian Administrative Service Examination. He worked hard and
burnt mid night oil, purchased lot of reading material of various kinds by spending lot of money on them and for coaching. When opportunity came,
he got application form, purchased Cross Indian Postal Order for Rs. 307 in favour of Union Public Service Commission and registered the post
on January 22,1992.
When he did not receive anything from Union Public Service Commission, he ascertained the matter from General Post Office, Srinagar where he
was told that the letter had been registered against No. 2765 dated 22 11992 and was forwarded to Delhi for delivery. Later, he received
communication from Union Public Service Commission dated 2441992 stating that his application could not be entertained as it was received on
521992, when the last date for receipt of application was 32 1992.
Complainant alleges that by the callous and negligent act of the respondents in the discharge of functions, he has been deprived of the last chance
for appearing in the examination at the cost of hard work and huge expenses. But for the culpable negligence of the respondents, this loss could not
have been there.
Respondents' case is that there had not been intentional delay in the delivery of letter and whatever has happened, that was due to circumstances
beyond their control. The letter was packed for final dispatch in T. B. 1/2 for Palam TMO on 241 1992. It could not be sent by Airlines, since the
authorities were not accepting the mail since 1691991 due to security reason and the mail was being sent to jammu through surface transport and
thereafter by Railway Mail Service. It is pointed out that road remained blocked from 2411992 to 3111992 and State Road Transport
Corporation Crew lifted the mail on 12 1992 after the traffic was restored on the highway. Complainant should have sent the application through
Speed Post, a facility available at General Post Office. Immunity from liability has been placed under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,
18£8 for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission.
Commission examined some witnesses and decided the case in favour of the complainant and against the respondents by ordering compensation of
Rs. two lac for irreparable loss and injury caused to him due to deficient service by the respondents after holding that respondents were guilty of
negligence and dereliction of duty and protection of Section 6 and provisions of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 was not available on the evidence in
the case.
Heard learned counsel for parties. Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 reads:
Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss,misdelivery or
delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as 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, misdelivery,
delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
It is necessary to quote the definition of deficiency in Jammu and Kashmir State Consumers Protection Act, 1987 :
Any default, imperfection, short corning, or inadequacy inthe quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or
under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to
any service.
There is no quarrel so far as definition of deficiency is concerned. The question is whether facts of the case pointed out any deficiency on the
part of the respondents in extending the service. Similarly, for burdening the respondents with liability under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office
Act, 1898, it has to be proved that the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post was the
result of fraudulent or willful act or default of the respondents. For appreciating both the provisions, evidence has to be examined carefully.
Complainant should have been extravigilant for sending his application, in case he was really interested to appear in that examination. When
National Highway from Srinagar to Jammu closes for traffic due to heavy snowfall or land slides, every one comes to know of it through media or
otherwise. Complainant should have know it. It is rightly submitted by Appellants' counsel that he should have sent the application through Speed
Post, a facility available at General Post Office, Srinagar and the complainant admits that he does not know what Speed Post is. Further, learned
counsel for Appellants places before us Confidential Proceedings of Post Master General, Srinagar dated 1891991, whichdemonstrate that after
joint meeting of DIG, Airport (Security), DIG, Security, Srinagar, Station Manager, Indian Airlines, it was decided to discontinue dispatch of Air
Mail from Srinagar Airport to Delhi for security reasons and it was decided to send the mails to Jammu by surface and there from to Delhi by
Air/Surface. Further, Appellants also produced certificate from Manager, SRTC through witness that National Highway was blocked from
2411992 to 3111992 due to heavy landslides as per office records. This document has been erroneously rejected by the Commission, instead
reliance has been placed on the certificate of Station Manager, Indian Airlines, Srinagar Airport dated 2091993 that mail was not refused. This
certificate is unsatisfactory, since it does not reflect the correct position as per Proceedings of PMG, Srinagar dated 1891991 in which Station
Manager, Indian Airlines participated. It appears, Manager, Indian Air;lines, Srinagar Airport did not know about the meeting dated 1891991.
There is also statement by witness Abdul Rashid, Sorting Assistant, GPO, Sorting Office, Srinagar that list of all the registered letters and articles
sorted out was prepared. The total number of 1st Class Registered Letters was 143 on that date and the number of complainant Registered Letter
was 2765. All of them were sent by the same dispatch. List of these letters is filed. Reading all the material together, we have no manner of doubt
that the Appellants did not commit wilful default in the transmission of the document. It was received on 2211992. Road was closed from
2411992 to 3111992. Mail was dispatched on 121992 from Srinagar to Jammu. It was received on the same day and sent to Delhi on 221992
where it reached on 421992. It was delivered on 521992. With this background, it cannot be said that there was any kind of willful default or
delay on the part of Appellants in dealing with the matter. With respect to delivery by Air, matter has already been discussed.
Commission order has been perused carefully. We find that Commission has not appreciated the matter correctly. Dependable and satisfactory
evidence produced by the Appellants has been rejected for unjustifiable reasons and that of complainant accepted, though it was infirm and
discrepant, with the result that conclusions, which are not in consonance with provisions of law applicable in this case, have been drawn.
Therefore, this Appeal is allowed, Complaint No. 7/1992 is dismissed.
Cost on parties.