Union of India vs AMITAVA CHAKRABORTY

THIS appeal is against the order dated 10.6.1996 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhubri in C.D. Case No. 20/1995 awarding compensation. The case in brief is that the respondent/complainant posted one letter through Speed Post in the office of the appellant-Post Master, Dhubri on 12.8.1995 to be delivered at Guwahati. The said letter was delivered at Guwahati on 18.8.1995. Respondent''s contention is that the said letter should have been delivered on 14.8.1995 at Guwahati. Respondent further contends that the last date of receipt of the letter by the addressee is 16.8.1995 and, therefore, there was delay in delivering the letter by the appellants. As a result of delay in delivering the letter to the addressee, before 16.8.1996, the respondent/complainant suffered loss. The respondent/complainant thereafter, claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency of service from the appellant/opposite party.

IN the written statement filed by the appellant/opposite party contesting the case, it is stated that the letter in question could not be delivered to the addressee before 16.8.1995 due to circumstances beyond control. The Speed Post bag along with the impugned letter could be despatched only on 16.8.1995 as the train services were cancelled on 12.8.1995 and 14.8.1995 (both working days) and 13.8.1995 and 15.8.1995 being Sunday and holiday, and therefore, the impugned letter could be delivered only on 18.8.1995. The District Forum after hearing the case on the basis of materials on record, found that even though the circumstances were beyond the control, the appellant/opposite party, could not be absolved from the responsibility for failure to deliver the letter by 14.8.1995. The District Forum, therefore, found the appellant responsible for the delay and hence awarded compensation of Rs. 1,500/- along with expenses of Rs. 10/- and value of draft of Rs. 50/- besides costs of Rs. 100/- for deficiency of service to be paid to the respondent/complainant. The present appeal is against the award of the District Forum as stated above.

The appellant assails the award of the District Forum is being against the specific provision of law as provided in Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. It has further been stated that the District Forum decided the case without examining any witness as required by law. The appellants contend that the District Forum failed to appreciate the circumstances explained by the appellant/opposite party as to why the letter was delivered only on 18.8.1995. The appellants, therefore, submit that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

SECTION 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 makes provision for liability or otherwise of the post office for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of the post articles. It provides as follows : "The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except insofar 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 wilful act or default."

It appears that for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission, the Postal Authority shall be liable only if it is proved that it was done fraudulently, by wilful act or default. The respondent/complainant has not made any allegation that the delay in delivering the letter at Guwahati was caused fraudulently, by wilful act or default in absence of any fraudulent, wilful act or default being proved in the transmission of the letter, the appellant cannot be held liable for the delay in delivering the letter. The cancellation of train services on two working days on 12.8.1995 and 14.8.1995 and two holidays on 13.8.1995 and 15.8.1995 being beyond control is sufficient ground for not being able to deliver the letter to the addressee at Guwahati before 16.8.1995 and, therefore, the Post Office is protected by the provision of SECTION 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. We are, therefore, of the view that the order of the District Forum awarding compensation is without legal sanction. It has been brought to our notice the decision of this Commission in C.A. case Post Master General v. Chitta Priya Nandi, 2000 (2) GLT (CP) 6, based on the decision of the National Commission in the Revision Petition No. 545 of 1994, Chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras v. Mohideen Abdul Kedar, II (1997) CPJ 49 (NC)=1997 N.C. & S.C. on Consumer Case 1411 (NS), which is pertinent in this case wherein it has been held that the decision of the National Commission is binding in nature. We do not find anything to disagree with the earlier decision of the Commission.

IN views of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the impugned order of the District Forum suffers from infirmity and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the District Forum dated 10.6.1996. There is no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.