STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2015
(Against judgment and order dated 31-03-2015 in Complaint
Case No. 39/2014 of the District Consumer Forum, Sitapur )
Superintended of Post Offices
Sitapur Division
Sitapur
...Appellant
Vs.
01.Rekha Kumari
D/o Sri Devkinandan
R/o Village Dingarpur
Post Kolhuwa
Police Station Mishrikh
District Sitapur
02.District Panchayat Raj Adhikari
Sitapur
...Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Dr. Uday Veer Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : None appeared.
Dated : 24-03-2017
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT(ORAL)
This is an appeal filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before State Commission against judgment and order dated 31-03-2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 39 of 2014 Rekha Kumari V/s Adhichhak Dockghar, Sitapur Mandal and another whereby District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint partially and ordered appellant/opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- to complainant/respondent within one month subject to condition that in case of default in payment of said amount within stipulated period the complainant/respondent shall be entitled to recover said amount with interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date of filing of complaint till date of payment.
Vide above impugned judgment and order the District Consumer
:2:
Forum has ordered opposite party no.2 now respondent no.2 in appeal also to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant/respondent subject to above condition.
Dr. Uday Veer Singh, Advocate appeared for appellant.
None appeared for respondent.
We have heard learned Counsel for appellant and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and order is against law and evidence.
It has further been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the complaint moved by respondent/complainant before District Consumer Forum is not maintainable in view of Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that appellant is ready to pay compensation in accordance with Rule 66(b) of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933.
We have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant.
According to complaint the case of complainant/respondent is that she had sent application to D.I.O.S. Sitapur for Kanya Vidyadhan through speed post of appellant/opposite party on 03-09-2012 but the envelop of application was delivered to opposite party no.2 now respondent no.2 in appeal on 04-09-2012 and he did not redirect it to actual addressee D.I.O.S. Consequently her application was not entertained and she was deprived with Kanya Vidhyadhan.
In written statement appellant/opposite party as well opposite party/respondent no.2 has admitted that the letter was delivered to respondent/opposite party no.2 and he could not redirect it to actual addressee.
Learned Counsel for appellant has taken defence of Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 as well as Rule 66(b) of Indian Post Office Rules 1933.
Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1998 reads as under:-
:3:
“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 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, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act of default.”
In the case of Union of India and others V/s M. L. Bora reported in 2011 (2) CPC-179 the Hon’ble National Commission has held that Section-6 grants complete immunity to the Government for the loss, misdelivery or damage to the postal articles unless same is caused fraudulently or by wilful act of default.
Condition 5 of Rule 66B as amended by notification No. G.S.R.-40(E) dated 21-01-1999 reads as under:
“In case of any delay of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the department of post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to composite speed post charge paid.”
Indisputably the envelop was addressed to D.I.O.S. Sitapur but it has been delivered to District Panchayat Raj Adhikari Sitapur respondent no.2. As such it is a wilful act of default and appellant/opposite party is not entitled to protection provided by above Setion-6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898. Further it is a case of wrong delivery. As such Rule 66B of Indian Post Office Rules 1933 is also not applicable on facts of this case.
We have examined the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum. Finding recorded by District Consumer Forum is based on correct analysis of fact and evidence. Quantum of compensation awarded by District Consumer Forum appears appropriate. We find no justification for interference.
Opposite party no.2 now respondent no.2 in appeal has not challenged impugned judgment by filing appeal.
In view of discussion made above we are of the view that appeal
:4:
has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Rs.5,000/- deposited under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal shall be remitted to District Consumer Forum alongwith accrued interest for disposal in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
( SMT. BAL KUMARI )
MEMBER
Pnt.
