Branch Post Master Village and Post Jaitpur and others vs Chandra Shekhar Pandey

The case of the complainant in brief is that, the complainant Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey for his admission in B.A. Class in Banaras Hindu University (in short ''B.H.U.''), had appeared in the written test after thorough preparation and was declared successful. The B.H.U. had sent an intimation to the complainant by registered post on 8th July, 2002 in which the later was asked to present himself with the original certificates on 16th July, 2002, before the University authorities failing which the admission was liable to be cancelled. Although the envelope contained the clear name of the complainant, father''s name, address and had reached the Jaitpur post office (post office of the complainant) for distribution on 11th July, 2002, the said envelope was delivered to the complainant only on 20th July, 2002. Hence, he filed a complaint before the District Forum on 10th October, 2002.

The postal department filed a joint written version on behalf of the Branch Post Master and others stating that the complainant was not available from 12th July, 2002 to 18th July, 2002, hence it was delivered on 19th July, 2002. The District Forum after hearing the parties awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for deficiency in service alognwith Rs. 1,000 as cost, and, if the amount was not paid within one month, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount.

The State Commission held that compensation awarded by the District Forum was excessive and reduced the same to Rs. 25,000 which should be paid within one month failing which interest levied @ 9% per annum. However, the litigation cost was enhanced to Rs. 5,000.

We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, whose main contention was that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, a complaint can be filed only against an officer/official who is responsible for the act and not against the department as such. In this case, he quoted the judgment of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 86 of 1996, Post Master, Imphal and others v. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, I (2000) CPJ 28 (NC), decided on 2nd December, 1999 wherein, it has held that Post Office Act gives protection to the Government except when there is a lethargy, or when an employee was responsible for fraudulent, wilful default leading to non-delivery of postal articles etc. The relevant section relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows : Section 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 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."

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation against the postmaster who had not delivered the envelope in time and who had not endorsed the absence of the addressee, hence. Branch Post Master cannot be held liable. As against this the learned counsel for the respondent upon instructions from his client has submitted that Branch Post Master himself was the person in charge of delivery. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh has given his statement in Hindi. An extract of the relevant portion translated into English reads as follows : "My name is Arun Kumar Singh. I am working as Branch Post Master in Jaitpur Kala Bhaya Bhagwanpur since 1992. I was also posted as Branch Post Master in the month of July, 2002. It is my duty to deliver the letters. I tried to contact Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey to deliver the above registered letter to him continuously from 12.7.2002 to 18.7.2002, but he was not found present, I was not aware of the fact that it is necessary to endorse remarks on the registered letter and therefore, I have not made endorsement Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey met me on 19.7.2002 and delivered the above registered letter. I did not issue any delivery note of the above registered letter because I did not have the knowledge in that behalf. In proof of delivery, I used to obtain the signatures on the notice book after recording the details of the articles and I have done the same thing in the present case also."

The learned counsel for the respondent contended that in case the addressee was not available an endorsement was to be made on day to day basis on the envelope, but that has not been done in this case and it is a clear case of negligence and wilful default.

So this clearly shows that the postman and Branch Post Master were one and the same person, as it is a tiny post office in a tiny village. The complainant had also stated that despite the fact that he was in the village, wilfully it was not delivered to him so it was a wilful act and it was deliberate and intentional negligence on the part of the respondents which included the Branch Post Master of post office Jaitpur. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that post master was not made a party does not hold water.

Coming to the amount of compensation, the State Commission by its order dated 24.4.2008 had moderated the relief by reducing the compensation awarded by the District Forum to Rs. 25,000. Accordingly we do not see any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.