Order No. 15 date: 20-07-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenge under this Appeal is the Order dated 18-12-2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata II (Central) in C.C. No. 1178/2008 whereof the complaint has been allowed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP Nos. 1 and 4 thereof have preferred this Appeal.

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that he sent a DD for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by Registered Post with AD through the OP No. 1 on 24-10-2007.  Afterwards, the Complainant came to know from the OP No. 5 that the said DD did not reach him and so, he wrote a letter to the OP No. 1 on 26-11-2007 with a request to give information about delivery status of the registered letter in question.  However, the OP No. 1 did not give any reply to his aforesaid letter.  Later on, the OP No. 2 vide its letter dated 31-12-2007 informed the Complainant that the said DD had been encashed through the OP No. 4 bank on 26-11-2007.  In such circumstances, the complaint was filed by the Complainant before the Ld. District Forum.

OP No. 4A, acknowledging that the registered post was indeed booked by the Complainant, stated that the same got lost on the way. According to this OP, the dispute was related to Gujarat Postal Circle and no postal official in West Bengal ever handled the registered article.  Therefore, according to the OP, it cannot be made a party to this case.

Decision with reasons

Admittedly, the Demand Draft in question was booked through the Appellant No. 1 by the Respondent No. 1 and the same got lost in transit from the custody of the Appellants.  Therefore, deficiency of service on the part of the Postal Authority as a whole is palpable beyond any iota of doubt.

There remains an ambiguity as to the fact from whose custody – the Appellant No. 1 or the Appellant No. 2 – the parcel concerned got lost.  Copy of no enquiry report is placed on record by the Appellants to enable us fix the responsibility in this regard  

Be that as it may, fact of the matter remains that both the Gujarat Circle as well as West Bengal Circle is part and parcel of the Department of Posts, Govt. of India.  To our mind, therefore, it is immaterial in this case to determine whether the registered article got misplaced from the custody of Appellant No. 1 or the Appellant No. 2. 

It is for the Department of Posts to cause a meaningful/sincere/diligent enquiry to fix up the responsibility, if it at all desires so.  However, pendency of such enquiry, if at all envisaged/carried out, cannot be the reason for the Postal Department to hold the Respondent No. 1 at ransom and delay the process of compensating the loss suffered by a bona fide consumer like him.   Failure to deliver the article to the addressee is a clear pointer of gross dereliction of duty, as also that of deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants and therefore, they must own up the due responsibility and make good the loss.

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants tried hard to pass the buck upon the bank concerned through which the DD in question got encashed.  An argument can be substantive – and still it raises eyebrows. 

It is to be appreciated that had it not been the handiwork of Postal Department employee, the article would never land in wrong hands.  Such a suspicion gains ground on due consideration of the fact on the very day when an official complaint was lodged by the Respondent No. 1 with the Appellant No. 1, the DD in question got encashed.  It is difficult to shrug of the same as a mere coincidence. 

In any case, it was the bounden contractual obligation of the Postal Department as a whole to ensure safe and timely delivery of the registered article in question which they have utterly failed to ensure.  Therefore, there is no point raising fingers at others.  The privity of contract over booking of a registered article remained in between the Postal Department and the Respondent No. 1.  Thus, for any sort of negligence in discharging contractual obligations has to be borne by none other than the party at fault.  

We find that the Ld. District Forum exonerated the Appellant no. 2 of all liabilities out of the notation that the registered article never reached the jurisdiction of the Appellant No. 2.  We afraid, no such documentary proof is forthcoming before us wherefrom we can accord benefit of doubt to the Appellant No. 2 in consonance with the findings of the Ld. District Forum.  We, therefore, deem it fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to hold both the Appellants jointly and severally liable to make good the loss suffered by the Respondent No. 1.  Otherwise, the impugned order appears to be in order.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that FA/667/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest.  Both the Appellants are jointly and severally directed to pay the decretal amount to the Respondent No. 1 within 45 days hence, i.d., law will take its own course.