Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 546 (HP)

Superintendent of Post & Telegraph v. M. L. Gupta

2008-11-05

P.D.SHENOY, R.C.JAIN

body2008
ORDER (Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member) - Aggrieved by the order dated 18th July, 2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in dismissing the appeal and awarding a cost of Rs. 4,000/-, the Spdt. of Post Offices, Solan has filed this revision petition. 2. The consumer dispute involved in this case falls in a narrow compass. The complainant in this case Mr. M.L. Gupta (in short the complainant) has alleged that he has been deprived of the interest on the sum of Rs. 11,23,882 between the period the authority issued by the Senior Deputy General of Accountant General (A&E) for release of the GPF till date of the actual release, due to the negligence of the staff of the Sr. Post Office. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000 alongwith Rs. 2,000 as cost after hearing the parties. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the Sr. Supdt. of Post and Telegraph filed an appeal before the State Commission. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner based his argument entirely on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (for short the Act) which protects the postal employees for the non-delivery of the postal articles and vehemently argued that the petition may be allowed and the complaint be dismissed. 4. We have gone through the records of the case. Copy of the postal receipt date 15.3.2004 shows that Sr. Deputy General of Accountant General, (A&E), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla instead of delivering the letter to the Principal, Guru Gobind Singh Ji Senior Secondary School, Bhagani, Sirmour, delivered the letter to the Principal, Sree Guru Gobind Singh Government College, Paonta Sahib. The nomenclature of the School and College are different and as such by delivering the letter to the Principal, Sree Guru Gobind Singh Government School Bhagani, there is a clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the postal department, which resulted in abnormal delay in getting the heard earned money of the employee who had retired. 5. The nomenclature of the School and College are different and as such by delivering the letter to the Principal, Sree Guru Gobind Singh Government School Bhagani, there is a clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the postal department, which resulted in abnormal delay in getting the heard earned money of the employee who had retired. 5. The learned Counsel tried to take shelter under Section 6 of the Act, which is reproduced below :- 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 insofar as such liability may in express terms by undertaken by the (Central Government) as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Officer shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdeliery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. 6. Learned State Commission were of the view that “this is an archaic law enacted by the Britishers with a view to ensure that because of their acts of malfeasance and malfeasance like delay, non- delivery etc., they are not held responsible. In our opinion, all laws are and have to be subordinate to the Constitution of India which was promulgated in the year 1950. When the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, are examined on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution, in the peculiar facts of this case, we have no doubt in coming to the conclusion that this provision is being used, abused as well as misused by the appellant in this case. Protection, if any, under Section 6 and for that matter under all other laws would be attracted to reasonable, fair, bona fide and genuine acts of the litigant like appellant and is subordinate staff. But it cannot be allowed to be invoked in cases of gross high handedness as is the situation in this case.” 7. In this case, it is very clear that there has been a default and gross negligence on the part of the postal authorities in not ensuring the delivery of the postal articles to the right addressee, which has caused pecuniary loss to the complainant. In this case, it is very clear that there has been a default and gross negligence on the part of the postal authorities in not ensuring the delivery of the postal articles to the right addressee, which has caused pecuniary loss to the complainant. Hence, we feel that the postal authorities cannot take shelter under the said provisions of the Act. 8. Accordingly, we do not see any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the lower Fora, which calls for any interference by this Commission. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in these proceedings. Revision dismissed. M.R.B. ———————