S.J.SHARMA vs SENIOR POST MASTER

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 16.7.1991 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in complaint No. BDF: COM: 603/90 on its file.

IT arises in this way:- The appellant had sent a recorded delivery letter through Basavangudi Post Office to MRTP Commission at New Delhi on 20.8.1990. The said letter was not delivered to MRTP Commission by the Respondent. Hence, he filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 4.50 spent by him and compensation of Rs. 25/-. The Respondent resisted the complaint by contending inter alia that on receiving the complaint from the appellant, an enquiry was made regarding the article in question with the authorities of the destination and it was learnt that the letter sent by the appellant was not traceable and has not been received at Delhi Post Office and that as per Clause 113(8) of Post Office Guide, Part-I and Rule 171(b) of P & T Manueal and Section 6 of the P & T Act, the Post Office is not liable to pay any compensation to the Appellant.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation in view of Rule 171(b) of P&T Manual and Clause 113(8) of the Post Office Guide, Part-I. Hence, this appeal by the complainant.

IT is not disputed that the recorded delivery letter was handed-over by the appellant to the respondent on 29.8.1990 and that he had spent Rs. 4.50 towards postage and recorded delivery charges. IT is also not disputed that the said letter was not delivered to the addressee. The appellant had hired the services of the respondent for consideration and if there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent he is entitled to get back the charges paid by him and also compensation. In view of Rule 171(b) of the P & T Manual and Clause 113(8) of the Post Office Guide Part-I, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation in the event of loss, damage or delay of the recorded delivery letter. But there, is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in not delivering the letter to the addressee and so the appellant is entitled to return of the charges paid by him for the said services. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to recover Rs. 4-50 paid by him for hiring the services of the respondent. As the complainant had to file a complaint before the District Forum, Bangalore and appeal before this Commission and having regard to amount of the charges paid by him, we think it proper to direct the respondent to pay the costs of Rs. 4-50 to the appellant. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and respondent is directed to pay totally a sum of Rs. 54-50 to the appellant within one month from today. Appeal partly allowed.