Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 290 (UTT)

POST MASTER, BHEL, HARIDWAR v. AVDESH SINGH

2009-05-27

C.C.PANT, IRSHAD HUSSAIN

body2009
ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President) This is postal department’s appeal against the order dated 25.05.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 07/2007 with cost of Rs. 1,000/- and directing the appellant to pay Rs. 10,000/- as damages in addition to speed post fee of Rs. 25/- to the complainant within the stipulated period, on account of delay in the delivery of the speed post article, which was to be delivered to the complainant at the earliest after 08.12.2006, the date of receipt of the speed post letter by the Post Office, Ranipur, District Haridwar. The letter was delivered on 19.12.2006 and the cause for delay shown by the department was that on 09.12.2006, the house of the addressee – complainant was found locked; 10.12.2006 was Sunday; regular postman of the area Sh. Kashi Ram went on leave from 11.12.2006 to 16.12.2006, during which period, the deputed postman Sh. Ashok Kumar could not locate the address; 17.12.2006 was again Sunday holiday; on 18.12.2006, regular postman Sh. Kashi Ram returned from leave and on that day again, the house of the complainant was found locked and finally, the speed post letter could be delivered to the complainant on 19.12.2006, when he was found available in his house. 2. The District Forum, after considering the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the protection under Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 was not available to the department and the delay in delivery of the speed post letter being willful, it was a clear case of deficiency in service and complainant was held entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, besides refund of speed post fee of Rs. 25/-. The complaint was, thus, allowed with cost as aforesaid. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered his submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the amended provisions of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 pertaining to speed post articles and argued that in case of any delay of domestic speed post article beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charges paid. Learned counsel drew attention to condition No. (5) of Rule 66-B and also the reported decision dated 30.03.2006 of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Union of India vs. Dr. Puran Chandra Joshi; III (2006) CPJ 120 (NC) and decision of this Commission in First Appeal No. 378/2007; Postmaster, main Post Office, Haridwar and another Vs. Sh. Jas Mahendra Singh, decided on 14.07.2008, in support of his contention that considering the relevant provision, the complainant could have been awarded compensation to the tune of speed post charges paid only and not more than that. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, we are of the view that the facts of the above referred cases were at variance, in as much as there was not much delay, that too against the norms in the delivery of the speed post articles. However, in the instant case, on department’s own showing, the postman deputed, failed to deliver the speed post article for continuous six days from 11.12.2006 to 16.12.2006, although the article was available for delivery on 09.12.2006. The copies of the delivery slips placed on record on behalf of the complainant, indicate that the postman on these dates merely endorsed word ‘try’ against the speed post article addressed to be complainant, which would not indicate that the postman had been vigilant enough to deliver the speed post article to the addressee. Immunity under Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 is not absolute and if there is a fraud or willful act or default on the part of any officer of the postal department, the department will certainly be liable for such misfeasance. Under the above facts of the case, we could not find it safe to reject the contention raised on behalf of the complainant that the delay in delivery of the speed post article to the complainant, was by reason of the willful default on the part of the concerned postman and, therefore, the protection of Section 6 of the Act was not available in this case to the appellant and the complainant was rightly held entitled to compensation for deficiency in service and his harassment. 4. We, however, subscribe to the view of the learned counsel for the appellant that the damages of Rs. 10,000/- awarded were excessive in view of the peculiar facts of the case. 4. We, however, subscribe to the view of the learned counsel for the appellant that the damages of Rs. 10,000/- awarded were excessive in view of the peculiar facts of the case. Complainant claimed to have applied for consideration of his candidature for a particular post, for which written examination was scheduled to be held on 14.12.2006, interview on 15.12.2006 and medical examination on 16.12.2006. The complainant had applied in time for the post and with his application, has also enclosed prepaid speed post self-addressed envelope for intimation to him from the concerned department. Through this speed post letter dated 08.12.2006, the complainant was intimated about some shortcoming or defect in his application for the post. The speed post letter posted on 08.12.2006, as stated above was delivered to the complainant on 19.12.2006 and by that date, all about the examination etc. of the post had already taken place. According to the complainant, due to delay in the delivery of the speed post letter, he was not able to rectify the defect in his application and was, thus, deprived of an opportunity to be selected and appointed on the post, for which he had applied. It was the complainant’s admitted case that his application has had shortcoming and was, in fact, defective and he was, as such, given intimation by the concerned department through the speed post letter dated 08.12.2006. As is the practice, only an application duly completed with required testimonials and fee certificate, are received and entertained by the department, which advertise a particular post. Since the application sent by the complainant was incomplete and had some defect, he could not have been held entitled to appear in the written examination for the advertised post. Therefore, the complainant although was put to harassment and agony by delay in delivery of the speed post article, he was not deprived of an opportunity of getting selected and appointed on the post advertised. Therefore, the complainant was not put to much loss and only appropriate and reasonable damages for harassment and agony by the delay in delivery of the speed post article could have been awarded by the District Forum. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that damages of Rs. 2,000/- would have been just and reasonable. In other words, the damages of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, were excessive. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that damages of Rs. 2,000/- would have been just and reasonable. In other words, the damages of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, were excessive. The order under appeal is to be modified accordingly. 5. Appeal is partly allowed. Order dated 25.05.2007 of the District Forum is modified and the complainant is held entitled to the damages of Rs. 2,000/-; speed post charges of Rs. 25/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the District Forum. Cost of the appeal made easy.