Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices & 2 Ors vs Rajnikant Sharma

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Senior Superintendent of Post Offices & 2 Ors. against the order dated 10.11.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.1436 of 2011.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent applied for the post of Dental Surgeon with the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP).ITBP on 10.04.2010 sent the permission letter to the respondent, by speed post, for the interviews scheduled on 13.04.2010.The said speed post was received by the respondent on 17.04.2010.Respondent approached the District Forum, Alwar, by filing the complaint, interalia, seeking compensation for delayed receipt of the speed post which resulted in his non appearance in the interviews at ITBP.On 30.06.2011, the District Forum, Alwar, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- within a period of one month, failing which 12% interest shall be charged on the delayed payment.The petitioners approached the State Commission, Jaipur, by filing the appeal against the order dated 30.06.2011 of the District Forum.On 19.08.2011, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.On 23.05.2012, the petitioners preferred Revision Petition, being RP/2030/2012, before this Commission.On 04.03.2016, this Commission remanded the matter to the State Commission to decide the same on merits.On 10.11.2016, the State Commission rejected the appeal.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent/complainant did not appear inspite of service of notice.Even on the date of final hearing the respondent did not appear and therefore, only the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 liability cannot be fastened on the postal department, Government of India for misplacement or late delivery of a postal article.The services offered by the postal department cannot be compared with any courier services as the postal department is offering these services even in the remote areas of the country where no private player would like to go.Learned counsel further stated that the speed post is also a postal article and therefore, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is equally applicable on the speed post as well.In support of his argument, learned counsel referred to the decision of this Commission in The Post Master, Imphal and Ors. Vs. Jamini Devi Sagolband, RP No.986 of 1996, decided on 02.12.1999 (NC) wherein following has been observed:-

"26. Therefore, in a number of cases this Commission has taken the view that no relief can be granted to a complainant on the mere allegation of loss or non-delivery of the postal article.A postal employee may be made liable provided an action was brought against him and it was proved that he was guilty of fraud or wilful act or default leading to the loss of the postal article or non-delivery there-of.In the instant case the complaint has been made against the Postmaster and Director General of the Postal Service. There is no allegation of any fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any one of the respondents.The complaint, therefore, must fail and be dismissed."

Learned counsel argued that the District Forum or the State Commission were not authorised to entertain the complaint in respect of the speed post under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the material on record.It is seenthat the judgment of this Commission in The Post Master, Imphal and Ors. Vs. Jamini Devi Sagolband (supra) is in respect of a registered letter and is not for a speed post article.Clearly the speed post is a special service wherein the postal department commits itself to deliver the letter within a specified period as given in their Citizen Charter. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898lays down the following:-

"6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far 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."

This Commission in RP No.2979 of 2017 Dr. Ravi Agarwal Vs. Speed Post Rajasthan and Ors. decided on 13.02.2019, has observed the following:-

"15. Moreover, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 clearly states that the exemption provided under this Section is not applicable where the Central Government has undertaken such liability in express terms.In the scheme of speed post, the Central Government has undertaken the liability of delivery of the speed post article within a certain period of time and has also taken the liability of refund of the speed post charges if item is not delivered or misdelivered or there is delay in delivery.Hence, as per the provision contained in the Section itself, this Section does not seem to be applicable in the matters of deficiency in the delivery of speed post articles."

Based on the above examination, it is clear that Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898is not applicable in the matter of speed post articles and therefore, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

It is seen from the facts of the case that the department of post is fighting its case only against the award of Rs.10,000/- given by the District Forum andthis is the second round of litigation.The department must have spent more than the awarded amount in contesting the case twice up to the National Commission.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani & Anr., IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC), has observed;

"2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers' skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category."

The Apex Court further held;

"10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers' office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and, to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of ₹15,000/-even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of ₹12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded ₹3,000/-towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to ₹15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for ₹15,000/-.

Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani.

We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

13.Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether ₹25,950/- for a claim of ₹15,000/-, apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins."

Based on the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani & Anr. (supra), this Commission would not like to interfere in the present matter keeping the meagre amount of award in mind.

From the above examination, it is brought out that the main defence of the petitioner department that the complaint is not maintainable in the light of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 cannot be sustained as Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not seem to be applicable in the matter of speed post.Moreover, due to meagre amount of the awarded amount (being Rs.10,000/- only), this Commission is not inclined to interfere in the present matter on the basis of view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani & Anr. (supra).

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 10.11.2016 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission.Consequently, RP No.309 of 2017 is dismissed with no order as to costs.