Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 22 (UTT)

SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES v. ATMA RAM

2005-02-11

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2005
ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This appeal has been filed by the Postal Department against the order dated 7.7.1999 passed by the District Forum, Pauri whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @ 10%. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Mahanand, complainant No. 2, son of Atma Ram, complainant No. 1 was residing in Kshetriya Gram Vikas Sansthan, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar. The complainant No. 1 sent to complainant No. 2 by registered post all his certificates of educational qualification, as original mark sheet, High School certificate, Inter certificate, B.A. mark sheet, domicile certificate, employment exchange registration certificate. The said envelope has not been delivered to the complainant No. 2 till date. There was correspondence but neither the envelope was returned to the complainant No. 1, nor it was delivered to the complainant No. 2. The complainant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical and mental pain, Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for getting the duplicate of the originals. 3. The appellant filed written statement and also the affidavit of the postman and alleged that the envelope was tried to be delivered to the complainant No. 2 but he was not available in his room, therefore, it was delivered to his companion residing in his room namely Sh. Rakesh Kumar. It is alleged that there is no deficiency in service of the Postal Department. 4. The learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them found that there was no authority with the Postal Department to deliver the envelope to Rakesh Kumar and in the absence of any such authority, the delivery to wrong person is definitely deficiency in service. The learned Forum, therefore, allowed a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- as above. Against which order the present appeal has been filed. 5. The complainant No. 2, Mahanand had appeared on 13.10.2004, thereafter, he did not appear, therefore, the appeal was heard ex parte. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the records. The plea of the appellant appears to be totally false or baseless that the envelope was handed over to some Rakesh Kumar. The complainant No. 2 has specifically alleged here in the reply of the appeal that he never knew the Postman Vishnu Sharma or Rakesh Kumar. The plea of the appellant appears to be totally false or baseless that the envelope was handed over to some Rakesh Kumar. The complainant No. 2 has specifically alleged here in the reply of the appeal that he never knew the Postman Vishnu Sharma or Rakesh Kumar. Therefore, it was the duty of the appellant to have filed the affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar. The appellant should have filed the evidence to prove that actually Rakesh Kumar was the room-mate of the complainant No. 2. He was getting education with him. He could have procured certificates from the postman and definite evidence could have been given that Rakesh Kumar was a classmate of the complainant No. 2, then some presumption could have been raised that people authorize every room-mate to take delivery but in the absence of any such evidence it cannot be believed that there was any authority of the complainant No. 2, Mahanand to Rakesh Kumar to receive any such envelope. Not only this the complainant No. 2 has written a letter to the Supdt. of Post Office on 2.6.1997 after about 6 months of the dispatch of the envelope that he has not received the registered envelope sent by his father. It should be immediately given to him. He has given his present address of Delhi in the said letter. This envelope does not appear to have been replied by the Postal Department. The copy of some inquiry dated 8.9.1998 has been filed. This is all internal matter of the post office to save their own skin. 6. The deficiency in service of the appellant on the face of record. The appellant could not prove that the complainant No. 2 has authorized any Rakesh Kumar to receive his registered envelope. It also could not produce any affidavit of Rakesh Kumar. It also could not produce any evidence that Rakesh Kumar has actually received that envelope. Even if it was so, it was obligatory duty on the part of the post office to have searched out Rakesh Kumar, should have directed him to deliver the envelope to the complainant, should have lodged the FIR against him if he has received the original certificates of a third person without any authority but the post office department failed in all its duties. If it has given wrong delivery, it should have exhibited his bona fide subsequently by getting return of the envelope from Rakesh Kumar and by handing it over to the complainant No. 2 but even after 6 months of the sending of the envelope, no action appears to have been taken. Had the appellant tried to trace out Rakesh Kumar, they could have easily traced him from the records of the school authorities but they became satisfied with their duties by saying that we have committed the mistake, we have given your envelope to Rakesh Kumar, go and search him and take it while the complainant No. 2 says that he never knew any such Rakesh Kumar. This is most glaring deficiency in service of the Postal Department. All the original certificates of the complainant No. 2 have been lost and the complainant has rightly been allowed compensation. In our view the amount of compensation is on the higher side. Only original certificates have been lost. We have all been students and we know merely by lodging FIR and affidavit, duplicate of every original certificate is issued by the authorities as original. It could have very easily been done in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-. There is no case till date that the complainant No. 2 has not received the duplicate of his certificates. In our view looking the expenses and mental agony, etc., a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is sufficient. However rate of interest as awarded should remain intact because the complainant should have been immediately paid compensation and he should have been co-operated in getting the duplicates. Therefore, interest as awarded is proper. The appeal is partly to be allowed and partly to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby partly allowed and partly dismissed. The finding of the learned Forum is hereby confirmed. However the amount of compensation is hereby reduced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. Rest part of the order passed by the learned Forum is hereby confirmed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal partly allowed. ––