IMPORTANT POINT
Where postal envelope was not delivered in time despite addressee being available it was a wilful act and was deliberate and intentional negligence entitling addressee complainant to claim compensation for the loss suffered.

P.D. Shenoy, Member—The case of the complainant in brief is that, the complainant Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey for his admission in BA class in Banaras Hindu University (in short BHU), had appeared in the written test after thorough preparation and was declared successful. The BHU had sent an intimation to the complainant by registered post on 8th July 2002 in which the later was asked to present himself with the original certificates on 16th July 2002, before the University authorities failing which the admission was liable to be cancelled. Although the envelope contained the clear name of the complainant, father’s name, address and had reached the Jaitpur post office (post office of the complainant) for distribution on 11th July 2002, the said envelope was delivered to the complainant only on 20th July 2002. Hence he filed a complaint before the District Forum on 10th October 2002.

2. The postal department filed a joint written version on behalf of the Branch Post Master and others stating that the complainant was not available from 12th July 2002 to 18th July 2002, hence it was delivered on 19th July 2002. The District Forum after hearing the parties awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000 for deficiency in service along with Rs.1,000 as cost, and, if the amount was not paid within one month, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount.

3. The State Commission held that compensation awarded by the District Forum was excessive and reduced the same to Rs.25,000 which should be paid within one month failing which interest @ 9% per. However, the litigation cost was enhanced to Rs. 5,000.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, whose main contention was that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, a complaint can be filed only against an officer/official who is responsible for the act and not against the department as such. In this case, he quoted the judgment of this Commission in revision petition No.86 of 1996 in Post Master, Imphal and Ors v. Dr Jamini Devi Sagolband1, decided on 2nd December wherein, it has held that Post Office Act gives protection to the Government except when there is a lethargy, or when an employee was responsible for fraudulent, willful default leading to non-delivery of postal articles etc. The relevant section relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows:

Section 6

“Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay on damaged the Government shall not be incur any liability by reasons of the loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may be express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided and no officer of the post officer shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulent or by his willful act of default.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation against the postmaster who had not delivered the envelope in time and who had not endorsed the absence of the addressee, hence. Branch Post Master cannot be held liable. As against this the learned counsel for the respondent upon instructions from his client has submitted that Branch Post Master himself was the person in charge of delivery. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh has given his statement in Hindi. An extract of the relevant portion translated into English translation reads as follows:

“My name is Arun Kumar Singh. I am working as Branch Post Master in Jaitpur Kala Bhaya Bhagwanpur since 1992. I was also posted as Branch Post Master in the month of July 2002. It is my duty to deliver the letters.

I tried to contact Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey to deliver the above registered letter to him continuously from 12.7 2002 to 18.7.2002, but he was not found present, I was not aware of the fact that it is necessary to endorse remarks on the registered letter and