Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President;
Dr. P.K. Vasudeva & Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANISATION—Appellant
versus
NORTHLAND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 2 of 2000—Decided on 19.9.2000

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Aditya Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. G.C. Babhar, Advocate.

The judgment establishes that the Post Office and Union of India cannot be held liable for non-delivery or misdelivery of a postal article in the absence of fraud, wilful act, or default by any officer of the Post Office.

Headnote:
Postal Service - Liability of Post Office - Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Section 6 - The judgment discusses the liability of the Post Office and Union of India in a case of non-delivery of a consignment. It highlights the interpretation of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and its application to the case. The court held that the Post Office and Union of India cannot be held liable for loss, mis-delivery, delay, or damage to a postal article in the absence of fraud, wilful act, or default by any officer of the Post Office.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant booked a consignment with a transport organization, and the documents were sent through the Post Office. The consignment was delivered to someone other than the intended recipient, leading to a complaint alleging negligence by the Post Office and the transport organization.
Finding of the Court:

The District Forum held the Post Office and Union of India liable for non-delivery of the consignment, while the transport organization was held negligent for delivering the consignment to an unauthorized person.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the Post Office and the transport organization for non-delivery and misdelivery of the consignment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, emphasizing that the Post Office and Union of India cannot be held liable for non-delivery or misdelivery of a postal article in the absence of fraud, wilful act, or default by any officer of the Post Office. The transport organization was held negligent for delivering the consignment to an unauthorized person.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Post Office and Union of India succeeded, and they were held not liable for the payment of the amount in question. The appeal filed by the transport organization failed, and they were held liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant.

ORDER

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—These two appeals, i.e. Appeal Nos. 22 of 2000 and 2 of 2000 have been directed against one and the same order dated 8.12.1999 passed by the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh in Complaint Case No. 1229 of 1994. The respondent in both the appeals is the complainant-Northland Engineering Industries, 368, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. The complaint was filed through its partner Shri S.K. Jain. The opposite parties impleaded in the complaint case were Post Office, Phase-I, Industrial area, Chandigarh through its Post Master; U.O.I. through the Superintendent of Post Officer, Chandigarh-20, M/s. Economic Transport Organisation, 22, Transport Area, Chandigarh through its Manager and Economic Transport Organisation, No. 36/1, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi through its Managing Director. The facts giving rise to these appeals may, briefly, be narrated as under :

The complainant-Northland Engineering Industries booked one consignment with M/s. Economic Transport Organisation, the appellant in Appeal Case No. 2 of 2000. The said consignment was to be delivered to M/s. P.C. Electric Company, Calcutta. The complainant paid transport freight charges which amounted to Rs. 330/-. The agent of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were required to deliver the goods consigned to the consignee M/s. P.C. Electric Company, Calcutta, after receiving the documents which were to be discharged by the Punjab National Bank, Brabourne Road, Calcutta after due process and endorsement in favour of the consignee M/s. P.C. Electric Company. The necessary documents were sent through the opposite party No. 1, i.e. Post Office under registered cover vide postal receipt bearing No. 1854 dated 1.3.1994. A copy of the said postal receipt was annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-2. It was averred in the complaint that Mr. N. Chakroborti, Calcutta based representative of the complainant-Northland Engineering Industries informed the complainant on telephone on 31.3.1994 that the documents which were sent through the postal-agency of opposite party No. 1 had not been delivered to the Punjab National Bank, Brabourne Road, Calcutta by that time. Thereafter, the complainant-firm informed the consignee M/s. P.C. Electric Company, Calcutta vide letter dated 2.4.1995. A photo-copy of the said letter was also annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-3. The complainant-firm wrote a letter dated 9.4.1994 to the opposite party No. 1-Post Office asking about the position regarding the delivery of the letter sent under registered cover to the Punjab National Bank, Brabourne Road, Calcutta. The consignee M/s. P.C. Electric Company in the meantime requested the complainant-firm to send bond, as the document had not reached the said Bank. This letter is dated 12.4.1994 and its copy was annexed as Annexure C-5 with the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant-firm sent a letter dated 23.4.1994 to the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Calcutta containing the indemnity bond addressed to the transporters alongwith the copy of the document. The copy of this letter has been annexed as Annexure C-6 with the complaint. The complainant-firm, however, learnt that the consignment aforesaid had been delivered to someone else other than the consignee M/s. P.C. Electric Company. The opposite party No. 2 M/s. Economic Transport Organisation, Chandigarh had also asked for requisite information regarding disposal of the articles vide letter dated 7.7.1994 vide copy annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-8. The said letter was replied by the complainant-firm vide its letter dated 15.7.1994, copy of which has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-9. It has been contended that no action was taken by the opposite party No. 2 aforesaid. The complainant also wrote a letter to the Director of General Post Office, Calcutta on 1.8.1994 copy Annexure C-19 which was followed by a reminder dated 5.9.1994 copy Annexure C-11. The Director, General Post Office, Calcutta asked t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

The judgment establishes that the Post Office and Union of India cannot be held liable for non-delivery or misdelivery of a postal article in the absence of fraud, wilful act, or default by any officer of the Post Office.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis