Mohinder Singh vs SENIOR POST MASTER

DISTRICT Forum, Patiala dismissed the complaint filed by Mohinder Singh vide order dated 4.1.1996 thus Mohinder Singh is in appeal.

THE grouse of Mohinder Singh, complainant in nutshell is that the postal authorities of Patiala the opposite parties should have delivered registered letters addressed to the complainant in his absence to his wife at the house. Earlier, he had issued authority letter to the Post Master concerned for delivering such letters to his wife in his absence. Since the opposite parties for sometime stopped delivering such letters to the authorised person, the complaint was filed. THE stand taken up by the opposite parties in the reply briefly is to the effect that authorisation given in the name of the wife was valid for three years and he should issue fresh authorisation. Considering these allegations and arguments addressed, District Forum dismissed the complaint. In appeal, Shri Mohinder Singh filed an application for taking on record a letter addressed by Senior Post Master to him on the subject, asking him to furnish fresh authority letter on prescribed form duly attested by Gazetted Post Master to enable him to deliver articles to the nominated massager as required under Rule 7.242 of the Postal Guide in Service Rules.

The contention of Shri Mohinder Singh, complainant is that no period is prescribed under Rule 7.181 for validity of the authority. He has also quoted in the grounds of appeal Rule 7.241 which prescribes authority for delivery of accountable mail to messengers and Rule 7.242 that authorisation will be valid for a maximum period of three years unless it is renewed. Another Rule quoted is Rule 7.261 dealing with the subject of delivery of accountable mail to students of educational institutions. As faras the last rule relating to delivery of accountable mail to students of Educational Institution is concerned, we need not make any comment. For our purposes, relevant rule is 7.181 on which the complainant has placed reliance. Rules 7.181, 7.241 and 7.242 are quoted from the grounds of appeal as under: "7.181. Delivery of Registered Articles. Registered Article is delivered to the addressee or authorised representative only and under receipt in the prescribed form, and on signing or affixing the thumb impression on the Acknowledgment, if acknowledgment due. If a registered letter cannot be delivered on first presentation on account the addressee being absent or the premises being closed, an intimation in the prescribed form will be left there, stating that the registered letter will be brought on the next working day also and that if the addressee fails to take delivery on the second day, either in person or through an authorised person, the addressee may collect the articles at the counter of the Post Office during the prescribed hours within the next five days, failing which the article will be returned to the sender indicating "Not found" and "Not claimed." 7.24 Delivery of Accountable Mail to Messenger 7.241. Accountable Mail other than VP mail will be delivered to the messenger when the addressee gives an authorisation to the Post Master in the following manner : "I authorise the Post Master to deliver registered and insured articles/money orders addressed to me, to my messenger (A or B or C) & on the Post Master delivering such articles and paying such money orders to any one of the messengers named above and obtaining the latter's receipt, I free the Post Office from all the responsibilities in respect of such articles and money orders. 7.242 Authorisation will be valid for a maximum period of three years, unless renewed."

RULE 7.181 refers to delivery of the letter to the authorised representative or the addressee only. This RULE 7.241 which also talks of delivery of the mail to the addressee or to the authorised person. Only difference in these two rules is that under RULE 7.181 when Postman visits the house of the addressee, he can deliver the letter to the authorised agent, if addressee is not available, whereas under RULE 7.241 a messenger is to visit the Post Office and collect the article and that messenger can be the authorised agent of the addressee. It is RULE 7.241 referred to above which prescribes the form of the authority. In view of RULE 7.242, the maximum period of authorisation is three years unless it is renewed. These three RULEs are to be read together in the matter for harmonious interpretation. No doubt, we are conscious of the fact that when letters are to be collected from the Post Office by a messenger, there has to be an authorisation which is frequent, whereas in the case of delivery of registered letters at the house, frequency may not be to that extent but be that as it may whether it is a registered article or accountable mail, the purpose is delivery of the same to the addressee or to the authorised agent and if the postal authorities are insisting for renewal of the authorisation after three years, even in the case of RULE 7.181, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in the matter of rendering service on the part of the postal authorities. Rather, it is the matter of smooth and safe delivery of registered letters and accountable mail that this caution is to be applied. This appeal is therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. ______________