advantageconsumer.com
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela
  about us
information management services
Important judgements passed by the Consumer Courts

It is reaffirmed that in case of delayed or non-delivery of Speed Post articles, the Postal Department is not culpable.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3789 OF 2017
(Against the Order dated 13/06/2017 in Appeal No. 1312/2016 of the State Commission Rajasthan)                    
                    
1. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL & ANR.
RAJASTHAN CIRCLE, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME,
JAIPUR-302007
RAJASTHAN                                                        ...........Petitioner(s)
                                                          Versus    
1. BABU LAL SAINI
S/O. RAM PHOOL SAINI, R/O. SURYA COLONY, IN FRONT OF POLICE STATION WARD NO. 15, CHAKSU
DISTRICT-JAIPUR  RAJASTHAN                     ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING                  MEMBER

Dated : 03 May 2018
ORDER

       This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Rajasthan dated 13.06.2017, whereby the State Commission partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner / opposite party against the order of District Forum, Jaipur III.

2.         Undisputed facts of the case are that respondent / complainant sent his application form for the appointment to the post of Constable in Police Department by speed post addressed to Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer on 03.11.2010. As per the norms, speed post should have been delivered at the address within two days but was delivered at the office Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer on 15.11.2010.  The last date of submission of the application form was 12.11.2010.  Therefore, the application of the respondent was not considered..  Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the complainant filed consumer complaint seeking compensation.

3.         The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing written statement denying the liability to pay compensation.

4.         The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the consumer complaint and directed as under:

“Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is being admitted and the opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.60,000/- (rupees sixty thousand only) towards mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the complainant.  Along with that, the complainant is also entitled for Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties.  Time of one month is being given for the compliance of the order.  If the order is not complied within the specified time then complainant will be entitled for the interest @ 10% p.a. on the total amount from the date of order till the date of compliance.”

5.         Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission on re-appreciation of record partly allowed the appeal and reduced the amount of the compensation awarded by District Forum from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.  Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the petitioner / opposite party has approached this Commission.

6.         Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that aforesaid order has been passed in utter disregard of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (in short, the Act) as also circular No.43-4/87 BDD dated 22.01.1999 issued by the General Manager (Business Development) addressed to all Chief Post Master General issued in furtherance of notification no. GSR 40 (E) dated 21.01.1999 which provides that in the event of delay of delivery of domestic speed post articles beyond the prescribed delivery norms as part of the money back guarantee, the speed post charges paid by the customer would be refunded. Learned counsel has argued that pursuant to the aforesaid circular, the speed post charges of Rs. 22/- after deduction of service tax was refunded to the complainant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 711 of 2017 Manager, Speed Post and Ors vs. Bhanwar Lal Gora decided on 28.08.2017.

7.         No one appeared on behalf of the respondent despite of service of notice.  Respondent was, therefore, proceeded parte.

8.         I have considered the contentions of the petitioner and perused the material on record.

9.         It is not disputed that speed post application was sent by the respondent to the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer on 09.11.2010 which was delivered late after the expiry of prescribed period of two days on 15.11.2010.  The State Commission vide its order dated 13.06.2017 awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for the aforesaid deficiency in service.

10.       In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on relevant provisions of Indian Post Office Act, 1898.

      Section 6 of the Act provides as under:

“Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage :  The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay, or 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 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”.

11.       On reading of the above, it is clear that Section 6 of the Act provides for immunity to the Government i.e. Postal Department from any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery of delay or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in cases where any expressed terms the liability is undertaken by Central Government.

12.       It is pertinent to note that pursuant to Section 21 of the Indian Post Act, 1898, Indian Post Office Rules 1933 were framed.  The said rules, thereafter were amended from time to time.  In the year 1986, the rules were amended and Rule 66B was introduced w.e.f. 01.08.1986 which reads as under:

66-B. INLAND SPEED POST SERVICE Inland Postal articles may be booked after obtaining receipts therefore, at the places specified in column (1) of the Schedule below and at the post offices specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Schedule for delivery under the Inland Speed Post Service subject to the following conditions namely:

(1) Inland Speed Post Service shall be available in respect of all classes of mails which can be sent by registered service;

  (2) an inland speed post fee of Rs.10/- per article for distance up to 500 km. And of Rs.20 per article, weighing up to 5 kg. with an additional fee of Rs.5 for every additional kg. or part thereof, for distance beyond 500 kms. in addition to the postage and registration fee and air surcharge, wherever applicable shall be prepaid by the sender in the same manner as is prescribed in the case of registered and parcel mail articles;

(3) articles for booking under this service shall prominently bear on the front the superscription INLAND SPEED POST and shall also bear the name and address of the sender in addition to that of the addresses, including the PIN Codes, of the Post Offices of delivery serving the addressee and the sender and their telephone numbers, if any;

(4) complaints regarding any article booked under this service( including a demand for refund of fees in cases of non-delivery of articles within the stipulated time) may be preferred within three months from the date of booking of the article and shall inter alia contain the number of the article, the date of booking and the name of the office of booking;

(5) there will be no delivery of these articles on Sundays and other holidays in the post offices concerned.

Explanation: For the purpose of this rule Inland Speed Post Service means the service which seeks to deliver postal articles within stipulated time, specified in respect of each city or town, as the case may be from time to time, by a special messenger or conveyance. “

13.       The above statute rule was further amended by notification no. GSR 40 (E ) dated 21.01.1999.  Following condition after condition no. 5 of Rule 55B was inserted:

“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.1,000 whichever is less”

14.       Pursuant to the norms, the Department of Post issued a circular No.43-4/87 BDD dated 22.01.1999 addressed to all Chief Post Masters General.  The relevant portion of the circular is reproduced as under:

a) In the event of delay of domestic Speed Post articles beyond the prescribed delivery norms published from time to time as a part of money back guarantee, the speed post charges paid by the customer will be refunded subject to the condition that:

(i)     Delay due to curfew, bandhs and strike etc. will not count as delay in delivery and such days of interruption will be excluded from the total days taken in delivery of articles.

(ii)   The article booked beyond cut off time will be counted as booked on the next day and will be marked as Booked after cut off time  

b)     In the event of loss of Speed Post article, loss of contents or damage to the contents, the compensation payable to the customer will be - double the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- whichever is less.

The loss of article or loss or damages to its contents will first be established on receipt of confirmation to this effect from office of delivery/destination and responsibility fixed and amounts of compensation recovered from the official/s at fault.

But settlement of claim will not be linked with recovery from the official. The sanction order will be issued straightway on receipt of confirmation in respect of loss or damage to contents of the article from delivery end.”

15.       On reading of the above, it is clear that in the event of delay of domestic speed post article beyond the prescribed delivery norms from time to time as a part of money back guarantee, the speed post charges paid by the customer shall be refunded to him.  It is the case of the opposite party that refund of speed post charges was given back to the complainant.  Therefore, the act of the opposite party as per law and rule framed by the Government cannot be said to be deficiency in service.  The Fora below have failed to take note of the above noted provision of law and the gazette notification as also the circular issued to the respective Post Masters General.  Therefore, in my view, the impugned order suffer  from material irregularity and cannot be sustained.   In my aforesaid view, I am supported from the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Commission in Revision Petition No.15 of 1997 Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Board Kurukshetra, Haryana & Ors Vs. Vijay Ratan Aggarwal and other connected revision petitions decided on 18.09.2002.

16.       In view of the discussion above, I allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and dismiss, the complaint with the observation that if the complainant has not yet received the refund of speed post charges, the opposite party shall pay that amount to him.

                                                                                              Top
 



feedback

query
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela