Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu       ... Appellant
Vs.
Calvin Jacob                                    ...  Respondent

Calvin Jacob                                      ... Appellant
Vs.
Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu         ... Respondent

      These two connected Appeals arise out of the order dated 26th March, 1992 passed by the State Commission of Tamil Nadu at Madras in Original Petition No. 267 of 1991 on its file.

      O.P. No.267 of 1991 was a complaint petition filed by one Calvin Jacob (Respondent in First Appeal No. 219 of 1992 and the appellant in First Appeal No. 272 of 1992) against the Postmaster General, Mount Road, Madras-2 (Appellant in First Appeal No. 219 of 1992 and Respondent in First Appeal No. 272 of 1992) seeking to recover from the latter sum of Rs.5,11,067/- by way of compensation for alleged negligence and deficiency in service in respect of 267 wedding invitation cards which had been handed over by the complainant's son at the post office counter for being posted after franking. The State Commission accepted the case allleged in the complaint petition and it awarded to the complainant and accepted as true   the facts alleged in the complaint petition and it awarded to the complainant a total compensation of Rs.18,767/- besides a sum of Rs.1,000/- by way of costs of the proceedings before it. Both the parties claim to be aggrieved by the said decision and have come up with these cross appeals, First Appeal No. 219 of 1992 has been preferred by the Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu, who was the opposite party before the State Commission and First Appeal No. 272 of 1992 is by the complainant Shri Calvin Jacob.

      The case put forward by the complainant, who is an Advocate with a standing of 34 years at the bar, is that he had arranged for celebration of his daughter's wedding at Madras on 29/5/1991 and in the said connection he had sent his con Ratnam Jacob to the post office along with 267 wedding invitation cards addressed to various friends for being posted by post. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainants son, on going to the post office found that there was a long queue at the counter where the sale of stamps and franking of envelops were being done and hence he handed over the 267 invitation cards along with postal charge of Rs.267/- to the counter clerk who promised to frank the envelops and post them. The further case put forward by the complainant is that he came to understand a few days later from some of the invitees to whom the cards had been addressed that they had not received the invitation cards and hence he had to send them a circular letter requesting them to attend the function. Subsequently, in view of the very poor attendence at the marriage function and reception, the complainant is said to have made enquiries with most of the persons to whom he had addressed invitation cards and learnt from them that none of them had received the invitation cards which had been entrusted by the complainants son to the counter cleark at the post office for frnking and despatching. Accordingly to the complainant, the counter clerk had misappropriated the money and failed to post those cards. Countending  on the basis of the above facts that there has been fross deficiency in service on the part of the postal authorities, the complainant instituted the complaint petition seeking to recover a sum of Rs.5,11,067/- by way of compensation under various heads. He claimed to recover a sum of Rs.500/- as the value of the 267 cards and further a sum of Rs.267/- being the amount of postage that was handed oer to the counter clerk. Next it was claimed that there had been wastage of food at the marriage function and at the reception to the tune of Rs.5,000/- because of teh invitees not having  turned up by reason of non-reeipt by them of teh invitation cards. A further amount of Rs.200/- was claimed by way of cost of the despatch of the circular letter to some of the invitees and an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- was sought to be recovered as representing the loss caused to the complainant on account of non-receipt of wedding gifts which would have been received if the invitees had turned up. Finally, a sum of Rs.5,00,00/- was claimed as compensation for the mental pain and agony suffereed by the complainant due to the non-delivery of the invitation cards.

      In proof of teh allegations of fact put forward in his complaint petition, the complinant filed his sworn affidavit.

      The opposite party filed its written objections denying the allegation that the counter clerk at the post office counter had misappropriated the postage charged and failed to post the invitation cards. The complainants allegation that the counter clerk had received from the complainants son 267 invitation cards along with a sum of Rs.266/- by way of postal charges was not seriously controverted by the opposite party. Reliance was placed by the opposite party on the provisions of section 6 of Indian Post Office Act for contending that the  Postal Department cannot be made liable for any compensation on the ground of any loss, mis-delivery or delay in deliery of any postal article. No evidence of any kind was adduced on the side of the opposite party and not even the affidavit of the counter clerk was filed in support of the defence case.

      The State Commission after a detailed advertance to all the materials on record has found that on the materials available on record including the sworn affidavit of the complainant, the only reasonable conclusion possible in the case was that "either the counter clerk has misappropriated the money and  destroyed the invitation cards or having franked the invitation cards he has misplaced them and failed to post them. In either case there has been gross deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the counter clerk for which the Department is responsible".

      Through the aforesaid finding of the State Commission was vehemently challenged before us by counsel  appearing for the Postmaster General (Appellant is First Appeal No. 219 of 1992, we do not find any reason whatever to disagree with the said conclusion recorded by the State Commission. The State Commission has specifically mentioned in its order that it was not seriously disputed before it by the respondent that the complainant had sent through his son 267 cards with Rs.267/- in cash to be franked and posted at the Mount Road Post Office and that the amount and the cards had been received from him by the concerned counter clerk by one Sri Ramakrishnan. Though the opposite Party put forward a case that the envelopes containing the cards were duly franked and posted, it is significant that the above named counter clerk was not examined by the opposite party nor was even any sworn affidavit of his filed on the defence side. The complainant has mentioned in the complaint the names of the 267 invitees to whom the cards in question were addressed. He produced in evidence exhibits A8 to A54 which are letters received by him from 47 of the invitees to whom the cards were addresed categorically stating that they had not received the invitation cards. On the baisi of the uncontroverted evidence consisting of the affidavit of the complainant and the supporting letters from as many as 47 invitees, the only inference that is possible is that the counter clerk had not posted the 267 invitation cards hich he had received from the complainants son. It is not shown to our satisfaction that the counter clerk had acted outside the scope of his authority in undertaking the responsibility to frank and post the cards in question. no such contention was raised by the opposite party either before the State Commission or even in the memorandum filed before this commission.

      We find no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the Postmaster General that by reason of the provision contained in Section 6 of the Post Office Act, the complainant is disentitled to claim any compensation from the postal authorities. The presen case is not covered by Section 6 of the Act for the  reason that it is noa a case where a postal article which had been duly posted had been lost or there was a delay in its delivery or damage to it. On the other hand this is a case where an article which had been entrusted to the counter clerk for being franked and despatched by post was not posted at all by him. We agree with the State Commission that the argument advanced by the opposite party based on Section 6 of the Post Office Act was devoid of merit.

      The only question that remains is whether any modification is called for with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainant by the State Commission. In First Appeal No. 219 of 1992 the appellant has raised the plea that the compensation awarded by the State Commission is manifestly excessive and it shoul in any event, be substantially reduced. On the other hand, the plea of the appellant in First Appeal No. 272 of 1992 is that the State Commission should have allowed the full amount of compensation claimed in the complaint petition and that the complainants appeal may be  allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the State Commission to the full amount claimed in the complaint petition.

      We have carefully considered the said matter in all its aspects. In our opinion, the award of Rs.500/- as representing the value of the 267 cards and also Rs.267/- being the amount of postage entrusted to the counter clerk cannot be said to be excessive. We are also  not inclined to interfere with the awarde of Rs.3,000/- made by the State Commission on the ground of loss caused by wastage of food. But in our opinion, the award of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the mental pain and agony caused to the complainant is on the high side and we inclined to reduce and refix the compensation payble to the complainant under the said head at Rs.10,000/- only which we consider would be reasonable and adequate in the circumstances of the case. After taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, the total compensation payble to the complainant, is therefore, hereby refixed at Rs.13,767/-. The direction issued by the State Commission for payment of costs by the opposite party will stand. Hence the result is that the Appeal No. 219 of 1992 is allowed in part to the extent of reducing the compensation payble by the appellant to the complainant to Rs. 13,767/- only. The order of the State Commission will stand modified to the said extent only. The appellant in this appeal will pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- way of costs to the respondent (complainant).

      First Appeal No. 272 of 1992 is deviod of merit and it is dismissed without any order as to cost.

      In my opinion, section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 grants absolute exemption from liability for loss, etc. of any postal article in the course of transmission by post except where the same has been caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default.

      The appellants statement that his son had delivered the invitation cards along with the postal charges to the counter clerk in the post office has not been controverted. There is also no evidence of fraudulent or wilful default. Consequently, the letters were in the course of transmission by post and as such Union of India is exempted for loss in the course of transmission.

      I, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission. There is no order as to costs.