Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/548

POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

RITA SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SH. RAJEEV JAIN

21 Sep 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 17.04.2015 passed in C.C.No.33/2014 by District Commission, Katni)

 

CHIEF POSTMASTER,

MAIN POST OFFICE, KATNI,

TEHSIL & DISTRICT-KATNI (M.P.)                                                                             … APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

RITA SINGH W/O SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH,

R/O KOTWALI PARISAR, KATNI

TEHSIL & DISTRICT-KATNI (M.P.)                                                                             … RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY                               :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent.

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 21.09.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the opposite party/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Katni (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.33/2014, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent.

2.                The case of the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) is such that she had booked a speed post article on 25.01.2014 to be delivered to Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Secondary

-2-

Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as Selection Board) from the office of the appellant and had paid Rs.45/- in this regard. It is alleged that despite several requests she was not informed about delivery of the said postal article. She had also lodged an online complaint but no response was received from the appellant’s end.  It is alleged that due to aforesaid act of negligence on appellant’s part, she lost an opportunity for employment.  Alleging deficiency in service on appellant’s part, she filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief of Rs.4,01,100/-

3.                The appellant in their reply before the District Commission made a submission that the said article was packed and sent to Jabalpur Hub for further transmission on 25.01.2014. On 27.01.2014, it was sent to Allahabad along with other articles in a bag. The said bag had reached the Speed Post Centre, Allahabad.  It was confirmed from RMS, Allahabad that all speed post articles were delivered to addressee-Selection Board in bulk entry, within stipulated time. More than one lakh speed post articles per day were received and therefore it was not possible to distribute information on ‘Indian Post Office website.’ Speed post article booked by the respondent was delivered to its destination and therefore there is no deficiency in service on part of the appellant.  The appellant referred to Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post

 

-3-

Office Act’, stating that the appellant cannot be held liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article, unless it is caused fraudulently or by willful act or default. The appellant also stressed on Section 81 of ‘Post Office Guide’ stating that the Indian Post Office is exempted by law from all responsibility in the case of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article.

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay double the amount of Rs.45/- i.e. speed post booking charges, along with Rs.455/- as Demand Draft charges. The appellant is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation, with another sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs.

5.                Heard. 

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has erred in not appreciating the fact that the speed post article booked by the respondent was immediately sent to the Head Post Office, Katni and on the very same day it was further sent to Jabalpur Hub for further transmission and it reached Jabalpur on 27.01.2014. On the same day, it was sent to Speed Post Centre, Allahabad through Speed Post Bag No.EBI0005013167.  On receiving complaint regarding its delivery, the matter was enquired. As per letter received from RMS, Allahabad dated 23.06.2014, all speed post articles were delivered to Selection Board in bulk

-4-

entry within stipulated time. Since large number of articles i.e. more than one lakh speed post articles per day were received from 23.01.2014 to 31.01.2014, special drive was launched to deliver them to the addressee. Because of such reason it was not possible to dispose of speed post articles on speed net and therefore the delivery particulars were not available on ‘Indian Post website.’ All the articles received by Allahabad RMS, have been delivered to the addressee. No list of refused articles was ever intimated by the Selection Board.

7.                Learned counsel further stated that the Government and the Government Officers, by Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post Office Act’ as well as Section 81 of ‘Post Office Guide’ are exempted from all responsibilities in case of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage caused to the post article in the course of transmission.  He further submitted that the respondent has not incorporated the Selection Board as party to the matter, through which the delivery of the speed post article could have been confirmed. He further argued that an express provision has been made in Rule 66B with regard to speed post and thus the compensation to be provided, be restricted by the amended provision in Rule 66B. On the aforesaid basis, learned counsel argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and this appeal be allowed. He relied on the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission in Post Master, Imphal Vs Jammi Devi Sagolband 2000 NCJ 142, Chief

-5-

Postmaster General & Another Vs Babu Lal Saini III (2018) CPJ 149 (NC), Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Vs Sayyeda Madiha III (2018) CPJ 260 (NC) and the decision of this Commission in Appeal No.2452/2006 (Up-Dakpal Jeerapur Vs Hemant Agrawal) decided on 24^th November, 2009.

8.                In order to appreciate the appellant’s contention it is important to have a look at the relevant provisions of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898. Section 6 of the ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898, provides as under –

“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 fraudently or by his wilful act or default”

 

9.                Pursuant to ‘Section 21’ of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898, ‘Indian Post Office Rules’, 1933 were framed. By amendment of the Statutory Rules in 1986, Rule 66B, relating to ‘Speed Post’ was introduced, and vide amendment in 1999, condition no 5 in rule 66B was inserted which 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 the composite speed post charge paid.

In the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/- whichever is less.

-6-

10.              It is apparently clear from the above mentioned provisions as also from judgments of Hon’ble National Commission that these cases are governed by Section 6 of ‘Indian Post Office Act’, 1898 and Rule 66B. No fraudulent or wilful act or default is established on appellant’s part in the instant matter. Upon receiving complaint from the respondent, the appellant has acted in a responsive manner.

11.              In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is therefore set-aside.  The respondent is entitled for amount in accordance with Rule 66B only.

12.              This appeal is accordingly disposed of with directions as aforesaid. No order as to costs.

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (DR.SRIKANT PANDEY) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                  PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER                     MEMBER