D. VENKATESWARA RAO vs Post Master General

THIS complaint is filed against the Post Master General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.

THE complainant on seeing an advertisement in Employment News by Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission for 400 posts of Assistant Professors in Colleges of Madhya Pradesh applied on 7.11.1990 by post. He sent the application alongwith required documents in an envelop and posted the same at Kachiguda Post Office near Railway Station on the same day addressed to the Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, Indore-452 001. But the surprise of the complainant after 7 days i.e., on 13.11.1990, the postal department delivered the same letter to the complainant instead of delivering to the addressee at Indore. It is the case of the complainant that he wrote the address of the addressee on one side and his address on the other side of the envelop very clearly. Since the last date for submission of the applications was 12.11.1990 and as the cover was returned to the complainant on 13.11.1990, the complainant lost his good chances of being selected as Assistant Professor due to the negligence of the Postal Department in not delivering the application to the addressee in time. He, therefore, filed the above complaint to direct the opp. parties to pay compensation. In the counter filed the opposite party No. 1 pleaded that according to the provisions of the Post Office Guide Clause 26(a) and (f) that the address should be written parallel to the length of the cover and in the lower half and towards the right hand side of the front of the article, leaving a clear margin atleast 4 centimetres at the top for the postage stamps and labels etc. It was also mentioned that it is desirable to note the sender''s address preferably in the lower left hand corner on the address side or failing that on the reverse of the article and there should be an indication ''from'', to obviate its being mistaken for addressee''s particulars. But the complainant did not indicate either ''to'' or ''from'' before the address. It is their case that the letters will be sorted out on various offices before it reaches to Indore. In the absence of clear indication of ''To'' & ''From'' address, it is possible for any one of the sorting post offices to send back of the letter of the complainant at Hyderabad as it is not clear which is the ''To'' and which is the ''From'' address. It was further pleaded that under Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act the very responsibility in the case of, (1) loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post; and (2) wrong payment or delay in payment by Foreign Postal Administration of money orders issued in India. It was therefore pleaded that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

Alongwith the complaint, Xerox copies of addresses on both sides of the cover, Xerox copy of the advertisement of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, Indore and Xerox copy of the application of the complainant addressed to Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission were filed. No oral evidence was adduced by both the parties.

THE only point that arise for consideration is whether the opposite parties are liable to pay any compensation in view of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Presidency Post Master & Another v. Dr. U. Shanker Rao, II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC) held that the complaints are not maintainable against the opposite parties in view of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. It observed "the services rendered by the post office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. Establishing the Post Offices and running the Postal service the Central Government performs a Governmental function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through. post and the charges for the article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges imposed by the State for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier".

IN the absence of any allegation in the instant case, that the mis-delivery occurred on account of the fraudulent or wilful act of any particular Postal Employee, we are satisfied that the complaint is not maintainable u/Sec. 6 of the INdian Post Office Act. It is therefore not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, without costs. Complaint dismissed.