Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/533/2015

Yogesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Post - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit kaith Adv.

23 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	533 0f 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	22.9.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	23.3.3016

 

 

 

 

 

Yogesh Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar R/o B-4, 147, Takki Mohalla, Committee Bazar, Hoshiarpur.

 

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

India Post through its Postmaster General, North Division, Sector 17-E, Sandesh Bhawan, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Shashank Bhandari, adv.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh. Rajesh K. Sharma, Adv.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant posted  a speed post letter EP146739189IN from Hoshiarpur post office on 6.8.2014. The letter was an application for the post of Child Protection Officer applied against the post advertised by the Union Territory, Child Protection Society under the aegis of Director Social Welfare Chandigarh Administration. The last date sending application was 11.8.2014..  It is averred that as per tracking details of the said letter the said letter was at Chandigarh on 8.8.2014. But to the utter dismay of the complainant when he appeared for the interview of the above post on 13.8.2014 he came to know that his application was not received by the concerned office and as such his name was not listed for interview. The complainant immediately approached office of Opposite Party situated at sector 17 who admitted that the said letter was never dispatched to the addressee since 8.8.2014.  Only thereafter the visit of the complainant they sent their postman to the addressee for the delivery of letter on 13.8.2014, which was too late. The complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party to redress the grievance of the complainant but to no avail. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2.     Opposite Party has filed reply and stated that the Central Government or its postal officers are exempted from any liability or loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act.  Claimed that since no allegation of fraud or willful act of any officer  is there in the complaint as such no liability can be fastended on the postal department or its officers. It is asserted that since the envelop was having cryptic address the article remained in the delivery centre for ascertainment of correct address.  Thereafter the complainant attended the delivery centre for the disposal of article on 13.8.2014 and it is on his clarification correct address was ascertained and article was delivered on 13.8.2014. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party made in the reply.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for Parties and have also perused the record carefully.
6.     Admittedly the complainant posted a speed post letter EP146739189IN from Hoshiarpur post office on 6.8.2014, which was an application for the post of Child Protection Officer applied against the post advertised by the Union Territory, Child Protection Society under the aegis of Director Social Welfare Chandigarh Administration. The  application was expected to be delivered before 11.8.2014 the last date for seeking application.  The main grouse of the complainant is that the said letter dispatched on 6.8.2014 remained undelivered till 13.8.2014 with Chandigarh Branch of the Opposite Party. Evidently the said letter remained undelivered and kept lying with the Chandigarh office since 8.8.2014 till 13.8.2014 (as per mark C1-A track result for EP146739189IN).
7.      On the other hand the Opposite Party in their defence quoted Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and claimed that there is no allegation of fraud and willful act of any officer in not delivering the letter in question. Therefore, no liability can be fastended on the postal department or its officers. The Section 6 referred  above is  reproduced as under for the sake of convenience:-

“6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, or damage- The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, mis-delivery of 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 here in after provided and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reasons of any such loss mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

   

    Another defence put forth by the Opposite Party is that the article i.e. the letter in dispute remained undelivered for the purpose of ascertainment of correct address, which was provided by the complainant on 13.8.2014 and after that the same was delivered on that very day as is visible in track result mark C1-A.

8.     We are not convinced with the  version of the Opposite Party as it is quite apparent in the referred track result of speed post letter bearing No.EP146739189IN  that the letter was received at Chandigarh branch on 8.8.2014 and  it remained there till 13.8.2014 and no reason has been given in the report of track result of the said letter for its retention for the disputed period. The Opposite Party’s plea that due to cryptic address mentioned on the envelop the same could not be delivered is of no help to the Opposite Party as there is no cogent evidence to prove this. Nothing has been placed on record by the Opposite Party that what kind of discrepancy was there in the address mentioned on the disputed envelop of the letter in question and what thereafter was provided by the complainant, which resulted in the delivery of the same to the addressee on 13.8.2014. As such we disagree with this contention of the Opposite Party and reject the same.

        As regards  Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act referred by the OP claiming that since there is no willful act of any officer in non delivery of article in question so no liability can be fastened on the postal department or its officer, after perusal of the said section we came across that a word “default” is attached to the Section referred above. The interpretation of the said section reveals that no liability can be fastened on the official of the post office if any loss mis-delivery, delay or damage to the article in question is occurred unless it has been done fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Which means if any act or omission by the official of the Opposite Party has been committed on account of fraud, as willful act or for the reason of default then the Section referred has no relief for the defaulters. It is thus we can safely held that the non delivery of the letter in question, was kept pending for want of any proper and cogent justification is nonetheless a willful act or default on the part of the official of Opposite Party. For this believe, we are well guided by the judgment of our Hon’ble National Commission in Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Alwar Vs. Pushpendra Singh decided on 15.10.2012 held that the post office is not supposed to play with the carrier of the citizens of the country. Letters sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent. If there is any delay due to some agitation, it is the duty of the state to find out some other method to prevent the delay in such like matters. It has been further held in the said judgment that Section 6 not providing a windscreen to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc. on their part in discharge of their official duties- Not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of  deficiency in service on their party.   In view of the above it is reiterated that in the instant case the delay in delivery of the article happened due to default of the concerned employee of the Opposite Party who retained the article in question for indefinite period whereas they received the same after two days of its dispatch from its original place which was supposed to be delivered in time. Thus the principle of law settled in the above case is fully applicable to the instant case.  As such the OP cannot run from its liability under the garb of section 6. Certainly due to this negligent act of the Opposite Party the dream of the complainant shattered as he missed and could not avail one golden opportunity of becoming a Child Protection Officer as his application could not reach the destination due to the deficient service of the OP which caused him a lot of mental agony and physical harassment for which he is entitled to be compensated by the Opposite Party.

        

13]          In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite party is directed as under:-

        

 

a]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant for rendering deficient service towards the complainant.

 

b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 45 days of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount at (a) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

23.3.2016                                                                                sd/-

                                                                    (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER