Union of India vs RAMESH KUMAR KHANNA

NOTICE of application for condoning delay in filing the appeal as well as appeal was issued to the respondent. When the matter was taken up on 18.12.1996, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. Registered notice had been sent to him and had not been received back. More than a month had passed. The application on merits was disposed of. The appeal was admitted and again fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents for February 24, 1997. This order was passed on December 18,1996. Again registered notices were sent to the respondents. It was not received back and nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. Ultimately arguments were heard on May 7, 1997 on behalf of the appellant, who was represented by Mr. G.S. Pasricha.

UNION of India and others (Postal Department) challenged order of District Forum, Amritsar dated June 21,1996 whereby a direction was given to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant, Ramesh Kumar Khanna, sole proprietor of M / s. Ramesh Kumar & Sons and the firm alongwith a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation. The complaint was filed by Ramesh Kumar Khanna, sole proprietor of M/s. Ramesh Kumar Khanna & Sons, Amritsar as well as by the firm aforesaid for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- with 18% p.a. interest thereon from October, 1991 and costs of the proceedings Rs. 1,000/-. The complainants sent a registered letter to M/s. Atal Sons, Luxmi Niwas, Aminabad, Lucknow containing Goods Receipt No. 089165 as issued by M/s. Amritsar Transport Company, Pvt. Ltd. in respect of 66 woollen Shawls worth Rs. 11,000/-. The registered letter was handed over to the authorities at the Golden Temple Road Post Office, Amritsar vide receipt No. 252 dated October 18,1991. The said letter as per allegations was delivered to Aminabad Post Office, Lucknow. However, it was not delivered to the addressee. After waiting for sufficient time, a complaint was made to Post Master, Golden Temple Road, Amritsar Post Office on November 19, 1991 making enquiry about the aforesaid letter. A reply was received dated November 26, 1991 that the correspondence should be had with the Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Lawrence Road, Amritsar. On December 12,1991, the complainants addressed a letter to the Post Master, Golden Temple Road, Post Office with copies to Sr. Post Office, Amritsar and higher authorities. A reminder was issued on June, 4,1992. No action was taken. On enquiry, the complainants came to know that the concerned Transport Company had delivered the goods against Goods Receipt presented by somebody. This happened with the connivance of the Post Master and unscrupulous and mischievous persons. In this manner the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the officers/officials of the Post Office was alleged.

The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. Some preliminary objections were taken. The complaint was not maintainable; the complainants have no locus standi to file the complaint; the same was barred by time. On merits, it was asserted that no letter No. 252 dated October 18,1991 was booked by the respondents rather Article No. 252 which was delivered to Aminabad Post Office at Lucknow had been booked by Ramghat Post Office and not by Golden Temple Post Office, Amritsar, vide report Annexure-1. It was admitted that the complainant was advised to contact higher authorities. In the complaint filed by the complainants, the date of despatch was mentioned as October 18, 1991 instead of October 17,1991. Due to this fact, great time was lost and in the meantime the records were weeded out. Reference was made to Post Office Guidelines, Clause 165 and liability was denied. Since, incorrect communication was made by the complainant giving wrong date, prompt reply could not be given. Subsequently, as stated above, the records had been weeded out and nothing could be done. The District Forum after considering the evidence produced by the parties on affidavits and documents held that there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Post Office officials as the registered letter was delivered to somebody else and they were liable to compensate the complainants.

THERE is obvious error on the part of the complainants while initiating action by making enquiry about non delivery of the articles with respect to the date of despatch. At page 19 is the letter of the complainants dated November 19, 1991 making reference to the registered article No. 252 dated October 17,1991. This complaint was forwarded by Sub-Post Master, Golden Temple Post Office to the Higher authorities with whom further correspondence was to be had. In this letter also reference was made to registered letter No. 252 dated October 17,1991. The complainants'' other letter produced is of February 12,1992 which also makes reference to Cover No. 252 of October 17, 1991. The same number was given in another letter written by the complainant dated March 6,1992, which is at page 29 of the record. The reply of the opposite parties is dated June 1,1992 (page 27) calling upon the complainants to produce original receipt. It was probably in reply to this letter that the complainant wrote letter dated June 4, 1992 that for the first time reference was made to the correct date vide registered letter No. 252 dated October 18,1991. It was in reply to this letter that the Lucknow Post Office report had been submitted that registered article No. 252 delivered to that Post Office was from the other Post Office and not from Golden Temple Post Office, Amritsar. The legal notice issued by the complainant through Shri S.D. Arora, Advocate in para 2 made reference to the Receipt No. 252 dated October 17,1991, which is corrected in hand to October 18, 1991. From Lucknow Post Office reply was received dated November 26, 1993; page 71 of the record that Article No. 252 of October 17, 1991 related to some other Post Office and was duly delivered. It was vide letter dated January 17, 1996 that Lucknow Post Office informed Amritsar Post Office about weeding out of the records under the rules. This letter is at page 73 of the records. The position of the evidence as briefly discussed above clearly indicates that primarily the complainants made a mistake while making reference to sending the registered article No. 252 on October 17, 1991 and the enquiry conducted on that complaint indicated that no such letter had been received by Lucknow Post Office and registered letter of that number received in that Post Office related to some other Post Office, which was duly delivered. Subsequently after lapse of number of months that the complainant came out that in fact registered letter was despatched on October 18,1991 and when enquiry was made with respect to that letter, the records had been weeded out at Post Office, Lucknow under the rules.

ANNEXURE from the guidelines issued by the Postal Department is at page 77 of the record. Rule 164 refers to compulsory registration of letters of the categories mentioned therein. The relevant would be Clause (g) relating, to any value payable article. Rule 162(2) provides for payment of twice the fee for registration for such articles which are mentioned in Clause (1) referred to above. Clause 165 further provides for valuable articles registered to be insured for the actual contents. At this stage, it may be pointed out that in the present case on payment of twice the fee for registration, article in dispute was not got registered. It is further not the case that on the Cover Note of the packet value of the article contained therein was mentioned. Post Office Guidelines, Para 1, Rule 163 reads as under: "163. Compensation.-The Head of the Circle may grant to the sender, or at request to the addressee solely as an act of grace, and not in consequence of any legal liable compensation upto a limit of Rs. 100/- for the loss of any inland letter, packet or parcel of its contents or for any damage caused to it in course of transmission by post, subject to the following conditions: (a) That the prescribed registration fee shall have been prepared in addition to the postage. (b) That the application for compensation shall have been made within three months of the date of posting of the article in the case of loss of the article, and within one month of the date of delivery of the article in the case of loss of contents or damage. (c) That the amount of compensation shall not exceed the actual amount of the loss or damage and that such amount can be referred directly to some loss or damage. (d) That the decision of the Director General on all questions of compensation shall be final. (2) No compensation will be given in the following cases: (a) For loss or damage. In case in which this has been caused by the fault or negligence of the sender, or in which the contents of the registered articles were articles which are not allowed to be sent by the inland post. (b) For damage, in case in which the contents of the registered article are liquid or perishable articles or articles of an exceptionally fragile nature. Note: No compensation will be given in case in which the registered article contained (illegible) insurance of which is obligatory or which is not allowed to be sent in a letter, packet or parcel as the case may be."

Since, it is not the case set up that either the value of the contents of the letter were disclosed on the cover itself or that twice the fee provided for registration was paid or that articles were insured, in view of instructions 163 referred to above, liability of the Post Office would be limited to Rs. 100/-. There is force in the Grounds of Appeal taken in this respect by the appellants, even if the story put forth by the complainants is accepted. The next ground taken in the Grounds of Appeal is about the bar of taking proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act in view of Section 6 of the Post Office Act. Such a matter came up before the National Commission in "Post Master General, Tamil Nadu v. Calvin Jacob", 1989-95, Volume II, Consumer Law Cases, 309, published by Singla Law Agency (First Appeal No. 219/1992, decided on July 19, 1994). That was a case where the complainant had handed over certain invitation cards to the employee of the Post Office alongwith requisite money i.e. Rs. 267/- for franking of envelopes and the allegation that the aforesaid employee did not do the job of franking and despatching the invitation cards and thus ultimately, the National Commission holding deficiency in rendering service allowed compensation. While making reference to the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Office Act in para 8 of the judgment, it was observed as under: "8. We find no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the Postmaster General that by reason of the provision contained in Section 6 of the Post Office Act, the complainant is disentitled to claim any compensation from the postal authorities. The present case is not covered by Section 6 of the Act for the reason that is not a case where a postal article which had been duly posted had been lost or there was a delay in its delivery or damage to it. On the other hand, this is a case where an article which had been entrusted to the counter clerk for being franked and despatched by post was not posted at all by him. We agree with the State Commission that argument advanced by the opposite party based on Section 6 of the Post Office Act was devoid of merit."

Section 6 of the Post Office Act reads as under: "6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.-The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery 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 officer 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 of default."

The present is not a case where the Post Office has undertaken specifically any liability. The liability of the Post Office could have been fastened on proof of fraudulent or wilful act or default. The complainants have failed to prove either of these ingredients. Simple allegation in the complaint that there was collusion of the Postman with some unscrupulous persons perse cannot be taken as proof of the allegation. It is in these circumstances that Clause 163 as referred to above would be squarely attracted to the case in hand and the liability of the Post Office is only to be limited to the extent of Rs. 100/in respect of loss of any article when a registered letter is handed over to a Post Office without specifically indicating its contents. Subsequently loss on account of mis-delivery or non-delivery. Post Office cannot be made liable.

NO comment in this case is made as to why the Transport Company handed over the goods without verifying the consignee. Such a matter if raised in the Civil Court can thoroughly be gone into.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District FORum is modified to the extent that the appellants would pay a sum of Rs. 100/- with 18% p.a. interest thereon from October 18, 1991 till payment. There will be no order as to costs of litigation either before the District FORum or in this appeal. Appeal allowed.