Supdt. Of Post vs Panchachuli Women Weavers

V.K. Jain, J

The complainant/respondent sent a parcel to one Madhumita Sinha in Kolkata from Head Post Office, Almora on 26.12.2011. According to the complainant, the aforesaid parcel contained goods worth Rs.82,800/-. Since the consignment did not reach the addressee, the complainant made enquiry from the Postal Department and he also made a written complaint to the concerned Superintendent of the Head Post Office, Almora on 07.01.2012. No compensation was awarded to the complainant despite the complaint made by him and the parcel having remained undelivered, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which admitted the booking of the parcel as well as the fact that the parcel had not been delivered. It was however, stated in the reply filed by the petitioner that as per clause 3.4 of the Post Office Manual, the complainant was entitled to not more than Rs.500/- since there was no fraudulent or willful act on the part of the Postal Department and the parcel had not been insured.

The District Forum having directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.82,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and compensation quantified at Rs.5,000/-, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.

Notice of this revision petition was issued to the respondent/complainant and was served upon him. No one however, appeared for him when the matter was taken up for hearing on 30.08.2018 though the notice had been delivered on 02.07.2018. The petitioner was directed to file an affidavit of the concerned Post Master disclosing therein as to who was held responsible for the loss of parcel in question and what administrative action was taken against him. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner has filed an affidavit disclosing therein that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against three erring officials of the Post Office namely Sri Swapan Kumar Pradhan, Mail Guard, MA Howrah RMS; Sri Swarup Sarkar, Sorting Assistant, MA Howrah RMS and Sri Krishna Ranjan Das, Sorting Assistant, MA Howrah RMS.

Clause 3.4 of the operating procedure of Express Parcel Posts, reads as under:

"3.4 Time bound delivery : Express Parcel Post provides time bound delivery of the parcels within the prescribed delivery norms.

In case of loss of the parcel or damage to the parcel, the compensation payable will be restricted to Rs.500 or the actual value of the parcel lost/damaged whichever is less."

On a conjoint reading of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, and the above extracted clause, it is evident that unless a parcel is insured, the liability of the Post Office is limited to compensation not exceeding Rs.500/-. This would be so even if the value of the parcel was more than that amount. Of course, the sender will be entitled to a lesser amount if the actual value of the parcel is less than Rs.500/-.

The legal issue involved in this petition was considered by this Commission in Revision Petition No.3125 of 2016 - Post Master & 2 Ors. Vs. Sarbeswar Sahoo, decided on 9.10.2017 and the following view was taken:-

"4. It is not in dispute that the parcel was delivered by the respondent / complainant to the petitioners for being delivered to the brother of the complainant in Orissa. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid parcel has been lost. The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation for the loss of the parcel and if so, what would be the amount of the said compensation.

Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as under:

"6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, 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".

In the Post Master, Imphal & Others Vs. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband Revision Petition No. 986 of 1996, the compensation for delayed delivery of postal packets was awarded to the complainants / respondents. Being aggrieved from the award of compensation the Post Office approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. Allowing the revision petition, the Five-Members Bench of this Commission inter-alia held as under:

"The Section very clearly lays down that 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 provided by the statute 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 of default. There are some provisions in the Act where specifically Government has been made liable to pay compensation for the lost postal articles. For Example, Section 33 categorically says that subject to such conditions and restrictions, Central Government shall be liable to pay compensation for insured postal article. But where there is no such specific provision in the Act for payment of compensation, Section 6 grants complete immunity to the Government for liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to the postal articles.

The second part of Section 6 deals with individual liability of the Postal employees but states that 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. In this case there is no allegation that the Post Master or the Director or the Director General was guilty of fraud or wilful act or wilful default which led to non-delivery of the postal article. An officer of the post office may be held liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage if it can be proved that he has caused such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage by some fraudulent act or wilful act or default. In other words, the person who has committed the offence can be sued for damage but no action will lie against either the Central Government or any of its officers vicariously for the wilful act or default of the dealing clerk or postal peon".

"It is to be noted that the judgments of the Courts are based on two fundamental principles. One is the absolute protection afforded to the Government and also the Governments servants who had not dealt with the postal articles themselves by Section 6. The other is the nature of postal service provided by the Government. The postal service provided by the Government extends throughout the territory of India. A letter sent from the remotest village in Kashmir will reach the addressee at the outer most point of Kanyakumari. A vast network has been built by the Government to provide this service. It has been emphasised that by posting a letter or handing over a packet at the post office for transmission to the address of the addressee, the sender does not enter into any contract with the Government. The sender really avails of a service statutorily provided by the Government. It is true that postage stamps have to be affixed but that is for augmentation of Government revenue. It is not in the nature of a price paid for the service".

"That apart acceptance of the contention of the complainant will lead to disastrous consequences. Assuming that 10 lakh postal articles are posted all over Indian every day (the figure must be much more) and in 1% case there is delay in delivery or loss of the postal packet, if the Government has to pay compensation for 1,000 delayed packets a day and if, as in this case, compensation of Rs.20,000 is awarded, the Government will have to pay compensation of Rs.21 crores a day which will come to Rs.730 crores a year. No Government can bear the brunt of this sort of liability in rendering a valuable public service to the people. Either the postal service will have to be closed down or the charges enhanced drastically to bring home nearly another Rs.800 crores of revenue. It may be noted that we have no correct figure of letters and postal articles sent all over India. Accordingly to a judgment of Division Bench of the Kerala High Court to which we shall presently refer it must run into billions. The Government gives much more in service than it gets in revenue. That is the reason for enacting Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act which gives absolute protection to the Government against any claim for damages on account of loss of a postal article except in cases and to the extent to which it has been specifically provided in the Act itself. As the Supreme Court has pointed out the Post Office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of the sender for sending of the postal articles to the addressee. It is really a branch of the public service subject to the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act and the rules made thereunder".

"In other words, the view adopted in all these decisions is that the relationship between the sender of a postal article and the post office is governed by the Indian Post Office Act that not by law of contract or tort. There is no liability at all for loss or non-delivery of a postal article except in so far as the specifically provided by the statute under Section 33 and Section 6 or any other regulation or rule.

A further question is because this Commission deals with cases of deficiency of services, does the sender of a postal packet acquire any special right under this Act? The answer has to be in the negative. There cannot be any special right against the express provision of the statutes".

"The scope of Section 6 was once again examined by this Commission in the case of The Presidency Post Master Vs. Dr. U. Shankar Rao, II (1993) CPJ 141(NC). In this case an argument was made that the provision of Consumer Protection Act was not fettered by the provisions of any other Act. It is an additional remedy and, therefore, delay in delivery of postal article or non-delivery of postal articles which causes a loss to a complainant can be redressed by this Commission. This argument was negative by holding "After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that the argument of the learned counsel for the respective Revision Petitioners has force. It was rightly argued that Section 3 of the Act clearly lays down that the provisions of the Act are in addition to but not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This shows that the Act provides additional means of obtaining remedy by a consumer but if the remedy is barred under any other Act, then the various forums constituted under the Act cannot grant the remedy prayed for".

The Commission also referred and explained the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and held that the complaint petitions were not maintainable against the Presidency Post Master and Another in view of the Act and that section.

In the case of Senior Postmaster, G.P.O. Pune Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat & Anr. a registered parcel sent from Pune to Mau was lost in transit. It was not delivered to the addressee. A case of negligence in the service was brought against the postal department and the Senior Postmaster, G.P.O. Pune. The complaint was entertained and damage was awarded by the District Forum, which was upheld by the State Commission. This Commission, however, reversed the decision by holding that Section 6 bars the claim of the complainant. There was no allegation that the article was lost due to fraudulent or wilful act of the official against whom the action was brought unless these are alleged and proved by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief by way of compensation for loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to a postal article in the course of its transmission. The complaint, therefore, was held liable to be dismissed".

In the present case, there is no evidence of any postal employee being guilty of fraud, willful act or default leading to non-delivery of the postal article. Therefore, the complainant was entitled to not more than Rs.500/- from the petitioner.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The petitioner is directed to remit a sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of booking of the parcel till the date on which the aforesaid amount is paid. The Revision Petition stands disposed of.