2005 (1) CPR 19
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
T.M. Hassan Pillai, President; Prof. R. Vijayakrishnan and Smt. A. Radha, Members
Jyothi. N.—Petitioner
versus
The Chief Postmaster General & Ors.—Opposite Parties
O.P. No. 51/2002
Decided on 2-9-2003

IMPORTANT POINT
It is not necessary to show that any particular employee of Post Office was guilty of wilful default in performing postal service to hold Post Office liable for deficiency in Postal Service.

Headnote:(i)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 17 — Complaint against wilful default on the part of opp. parties in effecting speed post delivery — Post Office Act — Section 6 — Wordings in complaint in Malayalam whether suggest wilful default on the part of Post Office authorities ? (Yes) (See Para 14) — Whether it is necessary that wilful default be alleged against a particular Postal Officer ? (No)(See Para 22)

       Held: In the light of the above dis-cussion, we are of opinion that first part of the contention of opposite parties that no specific allegation is raised by comp-lainant against opposite parties under S. 6 is not sustainable.(Para 14)

       The above stated findings in our opinion stresses on two aspects viz., in case of default etc on the part of “any officer” of the post office the appellants (post master and head post master) will be liable which indicates that allegation of fraud etc. need not be raised against the particular guilty officer. Further it shows vicarious liability of the post master for the default of any officer under him. Second point, as is revealed from the order is that when alleged “default” is “extensive” the complainant need not prove the same, but the burden to substantiate absence of negligence etc. lies on the opposite parties.(Para 22)

       In the light of the above discussion, our consideration opinion is, that complainant has satisfied the conditions laid down in S. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act by specifically alleging “default” on the part of opposite parties.(Para 24)

       (ii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 17, 2(1)(g) r/w 2(1)(o) — Complaint about deficiency in speed Post Service — Delay caused by despatching the impugned letter in a wrong bag — Whether a deficiency in postal service ? (Yes) (Post Office Act, — Sections 1 and 2(1) — Post Office Rules, 1933 — Rule 66(B)(5)).

       Held: Since Ext. R1, enquiry report of Sri. T.A. Chellappan, Superintendent. Department of Posts, India, Mavelikkara Division, in uniquvocal terms admits that the delay was caused due to sending the impugned letter in a mail bag to Kochi instead of sending it to Kannur-2 (the correct delivery post office) and the “purpose was not served” when looked into along with the statement of Assis-tant postmaster General (PG) in letter dated 9-10-2001 that action being taken against “official at fault” that the delay in delivery of the letter was caused due to the default on the part of opposite parties in discharging their duties hence they are liable to compensate the complainant.(Para 35)

       It is evident from the facts stated above that there has been deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties hence opposite parties cannot take shelter under the provisions of S. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. Hence this point is found in favour of the complainant.(Para 36)

       (iii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 17 and 14(1)(d) — Compen-sation for deficiency in Speed Post Service — Measure — Indian Post Office Act — Section 21 — Rules making power — Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 — Rule 66(B)(5) and Indian Post Office (First Amendment) Rules 99) — Speed Post delayed by one day due to wilful default — Whether liability of Post Office is limited ? (No) — Quantum of compen-sation — Loss of future service — Disci-plinary action — Effect.

       Held: As per Rules S. 2(1) of the Post Office Act. R. 66(B)(5) of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 and by notification of the ministry of communication (Dept. of Posts) dated 21-1-1999 reveals that it, covers the payment of compensation of Rs. 30/- for “Delay in delivery of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined” and not for the delay caused due to the negligence of the opposite parties whereas S. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act gives no absolute immunity to the postal authorities for, delay in delivery of “postal articles” but an action against the employee if he is found guilty of fraud, wilful act or default. Hence the contention of opposite parties that the liability is limited to Rs. 30/- even if the delay in delivery is caused by the negligence or default or fraud is not acceptable.(Para 45)

       In the light of the nature of defi-ciency as brought out in this case as narrated above and considering the suffe-ring of the complainant, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served by awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and accor-dingly we direct the opposite parties be saddled with the amount of Rs. 5,000/-

       as compensation. This amount of Rs. 5,000/- includes costs of the present litigation. Opposite parties are directed to comply with the order within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the opposite parties fails to comply with the order within the time stipulated above, this amount awarded will carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of this order till payment of recovery.(Para 56)

       Result: Complaint allowed.