AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal has been filed against the order of District Forum, Kurukshetra by which the respondent was awarded damages to the extent of Rs. 20.000/-, as compensation for the harassment caused to him as also interest @ 18% on the amount of Rs. five lacs for the period 19th January, 1995 to 6th March, 1995. Further costs of a sum of Rs. 250/- were also awarded.
BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent had despatched two drafts for a total sum of Rs. Five lacs by speed post and the same were to be delivered to the addressee within 24 hours However the same were not delivered at all and the respondent to obtain duplicate drafts on 7th March, 1995. The respondent has claimed loss of interest a part from heavy loss in business and mental agony etc. in his complaint before the District Forum. In the appeal before us, it has been argued by the flearned Counsel for the postal department that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898; Central Government and the postal department enjoy full immunity for any delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission and, therefore, no compensation could have been awarded to the respondent. In support of his contention the learned Counsel has cited number of rulings. The main and the latest one being in the Case of Senior Post Master, G.P.O., Pune v Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat & Another, II (1995) CPJ 230 (NC). It has been contended by the learned Counsel that the Hon''ble National Commission has upheld the objection of the postal department and dismissed the complaint filed against the postal department. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the postal department had started a special scheme under the name and style of speed post and they had guaranteed delivery of letters handed over under this scheme within 24 hours. Further, the Post Office department charges very high rates for these letters and this cannot be treated as a normal postal function. Since, it is a special scheme and no satisfactory reason was forthcoming for the non-delivery of letter sent by the respondent and compensation has rightly been awarded by the District Forum in this case.
We have considered the above arguments carefully and we find that whereas in the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants the Hon''ble National Commission had dismissed the complaint in that particular case but at the same time it made the following observations also : "This Commission has not held that in undertaking the carriage of articles transmitted by post the postal department is not performing a service which it has contracted to carry out for consideration."
In view of these observation and several other rulings of the State Commissions as well as the Hon''ble National Commission, it has to be held that the postal department is also rendering a service for consideration in carrying postal articles. The only question for consideration is liability for not delivering the postal articles within the time stipulated under special scheme. The main argument which appears to have weighed with the Hon''ble National Commission is, that the postal department was performing statutotory service and there was no contractual liability in such cases. This argument can be valid in case of ordinary postal transactions, but when special schemes were started by the postal department in the name of speed-post and telegraphic money order etc., then the statutory nature of the same is eliminated and a contractual liability is clearly incurred by the postal department in not fulfilling the undertaking given for timely delivery. In such cases unless a satisfactory explanation is forth-coming for the delay or non-delivery of the letters or money-orders, the postal department has to be held guilty of negligence in performing the service contracted for and would thus be liable for compensation on account of any loss or injury caused to the person, who entrusted under these schemes. A similar view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh State Commission in the case of Post Master Station Kachiguda & Ors. v. G. Hanumantha Reddy, I.A.S. Retd., II (1993) CPJ 845, and the Orissa State Commission in the case of Nirmal Panda v. Post Master General & Ors., II (1993) CPJ 988. Accordingly, we do not find any grounds for interference with the well-reasoned and detailed order of the District Forum in this case. The appeal filed by the department is thus fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.