SUB-POST MASTER, TIRUPUR vs V.RAMAKRISHNAN

AFTER having heard the Counsel for both sides we are clearly of the opinion that the State Commission and the District Forum had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in awarding relief by way of compensation to the complainant. The Complainant had despatched by rail a consignment from Tirupur to Howrah and the relative railway receipt was sent by the Complainant by Registered Post from Tirupur to Howrah on 15-12-1990. The grievance with which the complainant approached the District Forum was that the said letter was delivered to the addressee (consignee) only on 27-12-1990 at Calcutta and on account of such delay in the delivery of the registered letter, the complainant had to incur heavy loss by way of payment of demurrage charges to the Railway for non-clearance of the parcel. The District Forum and the State Commission have upheld the case of the complainant and directed the Postal Department to pay to the Complainant Rs. 3,152/- being the demurrage charges that the complainant had to pay to the Railway Authorities at Howrah and also costs of Rs. 400/-.

THE legality and correctness of the decision so rendered by the lower Forums is challenged in this Revision Petition filed by the Postal Department. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act lays down: "The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to, and 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."

The Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, inter alia, relies on the said provision and contends that no claim will lie against the Postal Department merely on the ground that there has been delay in the delivery of any Postal article. We do not consider it necessary to pronounce upon the correctness or otherwise of this submission because it has not been established in this case by the complainant that the delay in the delivery of the Postal article was caused on account of any negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Under the Scheme of the Consumer Protection Act and more particularly under the provisions of Section 14, a claim for compensation will lie at the instance of the consumer only if there has been a deficiency in service and a consequential loss occasioned by reason of negligence on the part of the opposite party. In the instant case there is no finding either by the District Forum or by the State Commission that the delay was caused on account of any negligence on the part of the opposite party. On the other hand we have before us the statement filed on behalf of the revision petitioners that the delay was caused by reason of the fact that there was a holdup of mails at the Calcutta Airport due to a "work to rule agitation" which was then being carried out by All India Union of National Federation of Postal Employees. It is true that this plea does not specifically find mention in either the order passed by the District Forum or in that of the State Commission and that might be for the reason that this defence was not put forward before those Forums by the Postal Department. But, the said defence has been raised before us and we do not find any reason to disbelieve the said plea put forward by the Postal Department. We accept the said plea as true. Hence it has to be held that the delay in delivery of the registered article after it had reached Calcutta in the normal course was occasioned due to factors beyond the control of the Postal Department and which amounted to force majeure and not due to any negligence on the part of the opposite party. In the circumstances the award of compensation to the complainant was totally unwarranted and without jurisdiction.

WE set aside the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum and dismiss the complaint petition. But, since the Postal Department had not expressly raised before the State Commission and District Forum the plea that the delay was caused due to the work to rule agitation by the All India Union of National Federation of Postal Employees, we direct that the Postal Department shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant by way of costs.