Delhi

StateCommission

A/12/326

POST OFFICE (EAST) SSPO - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAYYEDA MADIHA - Opp.Party(s)

24 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision:24.08.2016

First Appeal No. 326/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 15.02.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 204/2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(North-East) BunkarVihar Complex, NandNagari, Delhi-110093)

In the matter of:

Sr. Suptd. Of Post Offices

Speed Post Centre

Delhi-110051                                        .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Ms.SayyedaMadiha

D/o IqbalZafar

R/o 12A/J-1 Gali No. 7

Vijay Mohalla

Maujpur Delhi-110053                             ..........Respondent

                                                                             

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 15.02.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (North-East) NandNagari Delhi-110093. Vide impugned orders a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded in favour of the complainant.
2.      Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant Ms.SayyedaMadiha applied for admission to B.tech and B.Arch. for the Session 2011-2012. The admit card was not delivered to the complainant due to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the postal authority. Complainant also alleged that for appearing in the aforesaid examination, she had received coaching from Toppers Institute and Akash Institute. She spentRs. 2,00,000/- on this count.
3.      Defence raised by the OP was that it received the speed post article and processed the same at the speed post centre New Delhi on 08.05.2011. It was dispatched by Post Office of New Seelampur Delhi for delivery. It was given to one Sh. Manoj, a substitute of the regular post master named Sh. Sandeep. Sh. Manoj inadvertently wrote the address as ‘49, Jaferabad, Delhi-110053’ instead of ‘12 A/J-1Maujpur Delhi-53’.  Sh. Manoj was not well conversant with the beat. He however showed the article as ‘delivered’ copy. The same however could be delivered only on 14.05.2011 after the complainant called on 13.05.2011. An enquiry was conducted. Both Sh. Sandeep and Sh. Manoj admitted their fault. OP also relied upon Section 6 of the Indian Telegraph Act which provided that no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by raising of any such loss,misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.
4.      Ld. District Forum observed that nothing could be more glaring anexample of the wilful negligence than the one in hand. The directions provided under Section 6 of the Telegraph Act are not applicable to the postal authorities.
5.      Present appeal has been filed on the grounds inter-alia that Section 6 of the Telegraph Act provides directions to the postal authority. There is no dispute with the proposition putforth. A further reading of Section 6 shows that in case of loss or damage or misdelivery caused fraudulently or by amounts wilful or default the directions under section 6 was not available to the postal officials. As per enquiry conducted by the OP, both Sh. Manoj and Sh. Sandeep were guilty of breach of duty. It was a case of wilful act and wilful default. Obviously protection under section 6 of telegraph act was not available. It was thus clear case of deficiency of service. Appeal is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed.
6.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
7.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)