BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 6th day of March, 2014
F.A.No.36 of 2012
Thamotharan Muralitharan
S/o.Thamotharan
Puducherry – 4 ........... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Thiyagu Mudali Street, Puducherry.
2.The Head Post Master,
Head Post Office, Puducherry
3.The Joint Manager,
Department of Post,
Speed Post Concentration Centre,
Chennai. ........... Respondents
(On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.44 of 2008, dated 14.05.2012)
C.C.No.44/2008
Thamotharan Muralitharan
S/o.Thamotharan
Puducherry – 4 ........... Complainant
Vs.
1.The Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Thiyagu Mudali Street, Puducherry.
2.The Head Post Master,
Head Post Office, Puducherry
3.The Joint Manager,
Department of Post,
Speed Post Concentration Centre,
Chennai. ........... Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
TMT.K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU K.ELUMALAI,
MEMBER
FOR APPELLANT:
Tvl. H.D.Kumaravelu &
M.Murugan, Advocates, Puducherry
FOR RESPONDENTS:
Thiru R.Balasubramanian,
Additional Central Govt. Standing Counsel.
O R D E R
(By Lordship Justice President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry dated 14.05.2012 made in C.C.No.44 of 2008.
2. The appellant herein being the complainant before the District Forum in his complaint has claimed Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service of the respondents herein who were the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for physical and mental loss suffered by him and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is claimed towards cost.
3. The brief case of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum are set out here under:
(i) The appellant/complainant is a marine engineer and a Non-Resident Indian. He had to do Marine Engineering Class-II for his promotion. He did his advanced study in South Tyne Side College, South Shield, United Kingdom. He had completed three papers and had to complete another 5 papers in order to get certificate of competency. When he was in India, he has sent the fees and documents to United Kingdom for completing the five papers. As per the advice of the second respondent/second opposite party, he has sent the fees by speed post on 12.09.2007. But to his shock and surprise, the consignment did not reach the addressee till 21.09.2007 and the consignment reached the addressee only on 25.09.2007, by which time, the last date of receipt of the application has expired. In the result, the appellant/complainant could not write the examination because of the opposite parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence, he was put to loss and hardship. Therefore, the appellant/complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum, after serving lawyer’s notice.
(ii) The third respondent/third opposite party has sent a cheque for Rs.632/- towards refund of speed post charges. But the appellant/complainant refused to receive the same and approached the District forum.
4. The first respondent/first opposite party has filed reply versions which has been adopted by the other respondents/opposite parties no.2 and 3. The delayed receipt of the speed post at the destination country was beyond the control of Department of Posts in India. As per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of or any 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 herein after provided and no office 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 fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. Thus, as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, if there is any delay in delivering the postal article, the department cannot be held liable unless otherwise it is shown that the delay has been caused by some fraudulent or wilful act on the part of the respondents.
Thus, the reply versions of the respondents seek for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. Before the District Forum, on behalf of the appellant/complainant, Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.27 were marked. On the side of the respondents/opposite parties, Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5 were marked. Neither the appellant/complainant, nor the respondents/opposite parties have let in any oral evidence. The District Forum framed three points for determination which are set out hereunder:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Is there any dereliction and violation of liability on the part of the opposite parties that amounts to deficiency of service, any unfair trade practice is followed by opposite parties?
- To what other relief the complainant is entitled to?
6. On point No.1, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the appellant/complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On point No.2, the District Forum found that the respondents are not liable for the delayed delivery and that the appellant/complainant is not entitled for any compensation. On point No.3, the District Forum found that the appellant/complainant is entitled only for refund of postal charges from the respondents.
7. The present appeal is directed against the said order of the District Forum.
8. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant/complainant is entitled for any compensation for delay in delivering the speed post. It is not disputed that the appellant/complainant booked the speed post on 12.09.2007 and the same was delivered to the addressee on 25.09.2007, by which time the last date of receipt of the application has expired.
9. However, it could be seen from Ex.R.1 that when the complainant booked the speed post documents on 12.09.2007 to Great Britan at the second respondent/second opposite party post office, the same was despatched on the same day to the third respondent/opposite party no.3 as borne out by Ex.R.1. The said article was despatched from the third respondent/third opposite party to the destination in United Kingdom on13.09.2007 itself. The speed post article has reached the destination country on 23.09.2007 and as the delivery attempt failed on 24.09.2007, the article was delivered to the addressee on 25.09.2007 as borne out by Ex.R.2. As per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the department cannot be held liable for the delay in delivering the article, unless otherwise it is shown that the delay has been caused by some fraudulent or wilful act on the part of the respondents/opposite parties. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as under:
“6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage - The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons 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 or default.”
10. In the given case on hand, it is not the case of the appellant/complainant that the articles so booked under speed post was not delivered to the addressee in time, in view of the fraudulent or wilful act on the part of the respondents/opposite parties. The appellant/complainant neither pleaded the same nor established as such in his oral or documentary evidence. In such circumstances, We are of the considered view that the appellant/complainant will not be entitled to any compensation for the delay in delivering the article to the addressee.
11. The District Forum has also held so.
12. While coming to the conclusion, the District Forum has relied on the order dated 18.09.2002 made in Revision Petition No.15/1997 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein it was held that the post office is not liable for delay in delivery or loss of the speed post under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.
13. The District Forum also relied on the decision of the National Commission reported in 2011 CTJ 27 CP (NCDRC) wherein, it has been held that if the post office should be taken outside the purview of Section 6, then it is for the complainant to prove that the delay was caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default.
14. In (2014) CPJ 97, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Ravinder Nath Upadhya v. Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices and another had held that post office cannot be held liable for any delay in delivering articles sent by post unless the complainant proves that the delay was due to fraudulent or wilful act or default on the part of the department.
15. As rightly pointed out by the District Forum, no such plea was taken by the appellant/complainant and there is no document also to establish the said fact. Thus, We are constrained to come to the conclusion that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the respondents/opposite parties cannot be held liable for the delay in delivering the article booked under the speed post.
16. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant and We see no reasons to interfere in such well considered decision.
17. In fine, the order of the District Forum, Puducherry in C.C.44/2008, dt.14.05.2012 is confirmed and thus the appeal stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2014
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(K.ELUMALAI)
MEMBER
