IMPORTANT POINT
Section 6 of Indian Post office Act grants total exemption from liability to postal department arising out of misdelivery, non-delivery delayed delivery of postal articles.

P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Member—Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No. 969/93 dated 19/12/97, whereby Postal department has been directed to pay Rs. 1700/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, Postal department has filed appeal No. 933/98 challenging the said award. Also feeling aggrieved by inadequate compensation granted by the District Consumer Forum to him in the consumer complaint, complainant has filed Appeal No. 130/98.

2. We heard Mr. R.B. Jaiswal-Advocate for the appellant in Appeal No. 933/98 and he is counsel for the respondent in Appeal No. 130/98 filed by the original complainant. Complainant and his counsel remained absent in both the appeals.

3. Complainant had filed consumer complaint against Postal authorities alleging that he normally reside at Pune, but on some occasions, he was required to go to Belgaon or Bombay. On these occasions he used to inform Sub Post Master, Ex-Serviceman Colony Post Office, Paud Road, Pune-38, that he was going out of station. He used to give instructions as to what should be done in case his letters or registered parcels were received in his absence. However, it was the case of the complainant Mr. Yashwant Adarkar that Sub Post-master neglected to follow the instructions and returned the registered postal letters to the senders. In October 1992, he had given specific instructions to Sub Post-master in this behalf, but registered letter from New Delhi and 2 letters from Bombay were returned with a remark that instructions were not given in time. He has made complaint about it in Dak Adalat held on 30/3/93, but nothing was informed to him. He had to take trouble to go to Bombay and receive the cheque from Unit Trust’s office after a period of 3 months. Similarly, according to him after lot of trouble, he could locate two cheques sent from Delhi after a period of 9 months. According to him, in spite of endorsement made by Sub Post-master to retain the letters upto 5/11/92, those letters were returned and hence Postal authorities caused mental and physical harassment. He also pleaded that he had called his PPF book from Bombay under registered post on 8/2/93. He was out of station on 10/2/93 and 11/2/93. On returning in the evening on 11/2/93, he searched for intimation slip, but it was not found. He went to the Sub Post-Master and he enquired about the letter, but he could not get any letter and ultimately, he learnt that on the said letter, Postal department wrote endorsement, “Not accepted”. According to him, similarly there were instances wherein despite intimation given by him to the Post office, those intimations were overlooked and Postal department returned the letters or registered parcels to the sender without giving intimation to him. Making out all these grievances, the complaint was filed against Postal authorities, alleging deficiency in service on their part and claimed damages of Rs. 1,79,000/- along with interest and cost.

4. O.Ps filed written statement and pleaded that there was no instruction given by the complainant to the concerned Post office about redirection of registered letters received in his name or in his wife’s name. Telephonic or oral instructions for redirection of mails to another address or station are not complied with normally because genuineness of calling party is never established. Registered letters received from New Delhi and two letters from Bombay were treated as ‘Unclaimed’ and returned to the sender and complainant was given reply accordingly in this respect. It pleaded that in Dak Adalat, complainant was convinced about their reply. It pleaded that Postal authorities did not know the contents of letters. It pleaded that frequent instructions given by persons like complainant, either orally or on telephone are not complied with and this fact was also informed to the complainant on 25/8/93 by Senior Superintendent. Postal authority relied upon Section 6