Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 256 (HP)

Sita Ram Dhiman v. Sr. Postmaster, Deptt. of Post India, G. P. O. Shimla

2010-01-06

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, CHANDER SHEKHAR SHARMA, SAROJ SHARMA

body2010
ORDER Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President - Both these appeals have arisen out of the order passed by District Forum, Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 35/2008, passed on 19.5.2009, as such they were heard together and are disposed of by this order. 2. Sh. Sita Ram Dhiman, hereinafter referred to as the complainant filed the above said complaint against Senior Post Master, GPO, Shimla and Sub Postmaster, Post Office, Bus Stand, Shimla, hereinafter referred to as the OP Nos. 1 & 2 respectively, alleging deficiency in service. According to him on 23.8.2006, he booked a speed post envelope through OP No.2 containing migration certificate of Himachal Pradesh University of his daughter Madhu Lata. This was to be delivered to his son-in-law Sh. Avinash Chander in Gujarat. This speed post letter did not reach the addressee. So he made enquiries from the OPs to know as to what has happened to it. Instead of taking action they slept over the matter. In these circumstances according to complainant the speed post letter was not intentionally delivered to the see resulting in his daughter being not able to get admission in B.Ed course because of which she lost one valuable academic year. He thus claimed damages of Rs. 1,00,000/ - for misplacing the speed post envelope containing migration certificate of his daughter from Himachal Pradesh University. In addition to this payment he also prayed for being compensated because of spoiling the career of his daughter. OP No.2 charged Rs. 56/- against postage stamps of Rs. 25/-. He thus claimed for refund of the difference. He prayed for Rs. 10,000/ - as cost with a further direction to the OPs to trace and return the migration certificate. 3. When put to notice, stand of the OPs was that the complaint was not maintainable in the light of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. While admitting the speed post letter having been sent, it was pleaded by them that if envelope was containing migration certificate of his daughter, complainant should have got it insured in accordance with the notification dated 22.01.1999. Thus, according to both of them at best the complainant was entitled to refund of double the speed post charges if any paid by him or Rs. 1,000/ - whichever was less. Plea of the complainant regarding deficiency-, of service was specifically denied. 4. Thus, according to both of them at best the complainant was entitled to refund of double the speed post charges if any paid by him or Rs. 1,000/ - whichever was less. Plea of the complainant regarding deficiency-, of service was specifically denied. 4. District Forum below had come to the conclusion and in our opinion rightly that the complainant, had sent migration certificate of his daughter to the addressee, i.e. son-in-law in the State of Gujarat. It was not delivered. We may point out in this behalf that it is not the case of the OPs that the letter in question was delivered to the addressee. Situation would have been totally different if this was the defence set out by them while contesting the complaint. In these circumstances we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the District Forum below that the daughter of the complainant could not get admission in B.Ed. because of non delivery of the letter sent by speed post resulting in loss of her one academic year. In case the complainant had got the letter insured as pleaded by the OPs, then on account of non delivery, they would have had no legs to stand upon much less to have contested the complaint. 5. In the light of the above facts, we have to see whether non delivery of the speed post letter to the addressee by the OPs can be justified and/ or upheld either for its having not been got insured or on the basis of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. 6. So far defence based on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is an archaic law enacted by the Britishers more than a century ago not with a view to provide service but to protect its officials handling the mail for their acts of omission, commission, negligence as well as due to remissness on their part. With the changing time sending letters by ordinary post is a matter of past and we are sure that in course of time they are going to become a part of the history. For fast and speedy delivery of letters, parcels etc. modes like speed 'post, courier service etc. have to a large extent captured the field. With the changing time sending letters by ordinary post is a matter of past and we are sure that in course of time they are going to become a part of the history. For fast and speedy delivery of letters, parcels etc. modes like speed 'post, courier service etc. have to a large extent captured the field. Idea of sending letter by speed post is to ensure the fast, quick and prompt delivery of the parcel/letter sent through such mode. It could not be disputed on behalf of the OPs that for having sent the letter through speed post, complainant had paid extra money in accordance with the rules governing the same. Therefore to say that the complainant would only be entitled to double the amount paid for speed post or Rs. 1,000/ - whichever was less would be putting a premium on the acts of negligence on the part of the OPs whose duty is to ensure that the speed post letter was delivered to its rightful addressee. Even at the time of hearing, learned Counsel was not in a position to state anything whether the letter in question was ever delivered till date to the addressee so that in the appeal filed by him on behalf of the OPs, compensation could be reduced, whereas in the appeal filed by the complainant he has prayed for its enhancement. 7. The matter came up before the National Commission in an appeal filed by the Superintendent of Post and Telegraph in the case of Superintendent of Post and Telegraph Vs. M.L. Gupta and Anr., 2009 (1) CPR (NC). After examining Section 6 as well as what was held by this Commission, National Commission while dismissing the appeal, held as under: 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 misfeasance 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. 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 welt 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 its 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. 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 For- a, 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." 9. We have no hesitation in further observing that Section 6 is not a windscreen to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc. on the part of the OPs in discharge of their official duties. At the same time it cannot be said that whatever they do has always to be protected under this Section of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. We are of the confirmed view that non delivery floss of the speed post letter sent to his son-in-law in the State of Gujarat clearly constitutes a willful act of deficiency on the part of those concerned upon whom a duty is enjoined to have delivered the same. 10. That being the position, we are of the view that the appeal No. 230/2009 deserves to be dismissed being without merit. Ordered accordingly. 11. Now coming to the appeal of the complainant filed for enhancement of compensation. 10. That being the position, we are of the view that the appeal No. 230/2009 deserves to be dismissed being without merit. Ordered accordingly. 11. Now coming to the appeal of the complainant filed for enhancement of compensation. Taking an overall view of the whole case as well as material on the record of the complaint file, we feel that prayer for enhancement made by the complainant also needs to be rejected as according us he has been adequately compensated by the District Forum below. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in both these appeals which are accordingly dismissed while upholding the order of the District Forum below passed in Consumer Complaint No. 35/2008, dated 19.5.2009. All interim orders passed in the appeal filed by the stand vacated forthwith. Office is directed to place an authenticated copy of this order on the file of Appeal No. 230/2009. Complainant has undertaken to personally collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules, and Mr. Arora also undertook to get the same in the like manner. M.R.S.