AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner / complainant sent a registered letter to the General Secretary, Lok Complaint Department on 14.6.2012, paying charging amounting to Rs.40/- to the Postal Department. The said letter however, was not delivered to the addressee. Vide letter dated 02.7.2012, sent to the concerned Senior Post Master, the petitioner / complainant sought information in respect of the aforesaid letter sent by her. Vide letter dated 6.9.2012, she was informed that the aforesaid letter was not traceable and therefore, a sum of Rs.100/- had been recovered from the official at fault. Vide subsequent letter dated 6.11.2012, she was informed that since the letter sent by her was not traceable, the amount of Rs.100/- recovered from the official at fault, was being sent to her. Being aggrieved from the response, the petitioner / complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.75,000/-.
The complaint was resisted by the respondent, stating therein that in view of the provisions contained in Post Office Guide, they had allowed ex-gratia payment of Rs.100/- to the complainant, which the was the amount they were liable to pay in the event of loss of the article sent by registered post.
The District Forum vide its order dated 20.3.2015, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner / complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.1.2015, she is before us by way of this revision petition.
Section-6 of the Post Office At, 1898, reads as under:
" Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage -
The (Government) shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, 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 willful act of default".
Though, it can hardly be disputed that losing a letter / parcel sent by registered post, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation would amount to deficiency in service, the compensation which can be awarded against the post office for the aforesaid deficiency in service cannot exceed the amount, if any, prescribed by the Government of India towards its liability on account of such a loss. If however, it is shown that the said loss took place on account of any fraudulent or willful act or default of an officer of the post office, the complainant would be entitled to appropriate compensation from such an officer of the post office and in such a case, even the post office may be vicariously liable to pay the compensation judged against such an officer of the post office.
Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provision of the said Act shall not be in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. If compensation exceeding the amount prescribed by Central Government for loss of such a letter / article is awarded, that would be in conflict with the provisions of the India Post Office Act, 1898.
In the present case, the respondents have clearly stated in their reply filed before the District Forum that as per the applicable manual, the amount payable by the Government has been fixed at Rs.100/-. Therefore, the compensation payable to the complainant cannot exceed the aforesaid amount, which in any case already stands paid to her. Even, in respect of the articles sent by speed post, the rules, framed under Section-21 of the India Post Office Act, provides for compensation equal to the composite speed post charges. In Union of India Vs. Dr. Puran Chandra Joshi, III (2006) CPJ 120 (NC) there was a delay in delivery of article sent to the complainant through the post office. Being aggrieved from the said delay, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The District Forum granted compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- to him along with cost of litigation amounting to Rs.2,000/-. The said order having been upheld by the State Commission, the Union of India approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. Relying upon Rule 66B extracted hereinbefore it was held by this Commission that the complainant was entitled only to composite speed post charges as compensation.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that though there was deficiency on the part of the respondents in rendering services to the complainant, the compensation payable to her has to be restricted to Rs.100/-. We however, make it clear that the amount of Rs.100/- already paid to the complainant / petitioner shall be treated as compensation and not as an ex-gratia payment. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.