ENSONS ENTERPRISES vs Post Master General

HAVING lost his case before the District Forum the complainant has filed this appeal. The complainant has sent a registered postal parcel from the office of the 2nd opposite party consisting of Philips pre-set 1 KV Potentio Meter 9000 units on 27.1.1995 after paying the necessary charges to be delivered to the Deputy Director General of Meteorology at New Delhi. The addressee received the parcel on 2.2.1995. At that time the parcel was found to be damaged. However, the addressee did not raise any objection and took away the parcel but after 5 days that was on 7.2.1995 he made a complaint to the Postal Authorities stating that out of 9000 units of Philips pre-set 1 K Potentio Meter, 8600 units were missing. He was informed by the Postal Authorities that the matter was investigated and it was found that the alleged loss has not been established. Thereupon the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party causing damage to the parcel and making short delivery of the articles registered for transmission.

THE opposite parties officers of the Telecom Department contended that there was no fault on the part of the Postal Department and the addressee did not ask for open delivery and he did not demand for taking any inventory and the complaint was made only after 5 days and there was no fraud or any such thing complained against any of the officers of the Postal Department and in these circumstances under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the opposite parties are absolved from any liability. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence came to the conclusion that the damage alleged has not been established and further under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, this complaint cannot be maintained against the opposite parties. On these findings the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

Now in the appeal on perusal of the order of the District Forum and the relevant records we find no compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of the District Forum. It is not in dispute that the addressee did not ask for open delivery and did not want any inventory to be taken at the time of receipt of the parcel and it was only after 5 days he has made a complaint. In these circumstances, it cannot be definitely said that there was any pilferage during the postal transmission and therefore the allegation that shortage occurred due to the misconduct of the opposite party cannot be believed. Further as pointed out by the District Forum in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, in the circumstances of the case, the Postal Department is absolved from any liability. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the officers of the Postal Department has caused the damage wilfully or by default. Admittedly there is no express undertaking by the Postal Department to make good the loss. It follows that the opposite party cannot be held to be liable to pay any damages. Thus we find no merit in the appeal.

ACCORDINGLY the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.