Appeal No.660/09


1.Head Post Master,Post Office,Sindhi Colony,Jaipur.

2.Indian Post & Telegraph Deptt.,M.I.Road,Jaipur.

Appellants


V.


Sunil Kumar Saini,r/o A-8,Shivaji Nagar,Jaipur. Respondent


Before:

Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Hemant Tak,counsel for the appellants




Date of Judgement 23.6.09



Heard at admission stage.


This appeal has been filed by the appellants Post & Telegraph Department who were ops no.1 & 2 before the District Forum-I,Jaipur against the order dated 24.3.09 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur in complaint no.1304/07,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay Rs.8000/- as amount of compensation for mental agony with Rs.1500/- as amount of cost of litigation to the complainant respondent and if the above amount was not paid within one month,the rate of interest charged would be 12% p.a.


2


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants before the District Forum-I,Jaipur interalia stating that he had sent an envelope in which a form was there,through speed post services of the appellants and he had delivered that letter to appellant no.1 on 5.9.07 and that letter was sent by the appellants from Jaipur to Khadagpur,District Munger,Bihar State through speed post and that letter was delivered at its destination on 11.9.07 though it must have been delivered within two or thee days as the same was sent through speed post and for the deficiency the complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum admitting the fact that the letter in question which was despatched on 5.9.07 from Jaipur through speed post was delivered on 11.9.07, but on point of deficiency in service a protection u/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,1898 was sought and it was prayed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 24.3.09 had come to the conclusion that the protection u/s 6 of the Act,1898 could not be made available to the appellants as the letter in question which was sent through speed post must have been delivered within time and since it was delivered after 6 days,therefore,deficiency in service on the part of the appellants was clearly established.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants.


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that since in the present case,no doubt the letter was

3


delivered with some delay,even then protection u/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,1898 was available to the appellants and thus the District Forum had committed a serious error and illegality in decreeing the claim and thus the findings recorded by the District Forum be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.


We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.


Taking into consideration that in the present case,the letter which was sent through speed post on 5.9.07 and which was delivered on 11.9.07 clearly reflects that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in delivering the letter with a substantial delay. Thus there was clear cut negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and the District Forum had rightly held so.


So far as the question whether protection u/s 6 of the Act,1898 is available to the appellants or not is concerned, it may be stated here that Section 6 of the Act,1898 does not provide the blanket or total immunity and it does not empower the postal department and its officers to do whatever they like with the postal article entrusted to them and then to claim immunity from liability for loss,misdelivery etc of that article.


For reasons as stated above,this Commission is of the view that the District Forum had rightly held that the protection u/s 6 of the Act,1898 was not made available to the appellants and thus we see no reason to differ with the findings and conclusions of the District Forum as they are based on correct appreciation of entire materials and evidence available on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality or perversity. Hence no interference is called for and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.


Accordingly,this appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.

4



However, two months time is granted to the appellants for making the compliance of the impugned order dated 24.3.09 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur.




Member President