Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Dr. Ravi Agarwal —Petitioner
versus
Speed Post, Rajasthan
University and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2979 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 10/08/2017 in Appeal No. 799/2016 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 13.2.2019

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: In-person
For the Respondent:Mr. Vijay Chandra Joshi, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
If postal department is not inquiring into complaints received in respect of speed post after 30 days, department is not performing its duty.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Indian Post Office Act, 1898—Section 6—Postal service—Speed Post—Late delivery—State Commission partially accepted appeal and reduced amount of compensation from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.50,000/-—Section 6 will not give immunity to department or employee if an employee is found delinquent in his duty if an inquiry is done—Whereas in present case, department has not conducted any inquiry though it was possible to conduct such an inquiry as complaint was received when records were not weeded out—If postal department is not inquiring into complaints received in respect of speed post after 30 days, department is not performing its duty which is cast upon all departments of Government of India to redress public grievances in an effective manner—Compensation granted by State Commission is reasonable and does not require any modification from this Commission—Revision Petitions dismissed.
       Held: From the above, it is clear that this Section will not give immunity to the department or the employee if an employee is found delinquent in his duty if an inquiry is done, whereas in the present case, the department has not conducted any inquiry though it was possible to conduct such an inquiry as the complaint was received when the records were not weeded out. In the letter of Director General of Posts dated 14.6.1990 a time of one month is given for any inquiry to be made about the details of the Speed Post. Here, it is to be noted that this letter prescribes time of 30 days only for enquires regarding speed post articles. Enquires may not always be complaints. In an enquiry, some information is to be provided by the department. However, a complaint may require inquiry on the part of the department and complaint cannot be termed as an enquiry. However, the same letter also provides for retention of record for six months. Perhaps it discloses the intention of the Government of India that a complaint may be filed within a period of six months when the record is available. Therefore, if the postal department is not inquiring into complaints received in respect of speed post after 30 days, perhaps the department is not performing its duty which is cast upon all the departments of Government of India to redress the public grievances in an effective manner.
       So far as question of compensation is concerned, it is seen that the District Forum had granted exemplary compensation of Rs.10 lakhs though the complainant had demanded Rs.2,00,000/- only. The State Commission has awarded Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment as there was no guarantee that the complainant could have been selected. It is also told by the complainant that the advertisement was issued on 09.09.2012 and he applied on 21.09.2012, whereas last date was 27.09.2012. The complainant should have been more careful and should have sent his application giving more time for possible postal delays. However, the fact is that the opposite party postal department could not deliver the Speed Post within the time promised. Hence, the complainant is definitely entitled to compensation. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the compensation granted by the State Commission is reasonable and does not require any modification from this Commission.
       Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, both the revision petition Nos. 2979 of 2017 & 3238 of 2017 are dismissed.
        (Paras 13, 20 and 21)
       Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.

ORDER

These two revision petitions No.2979 of 2017 and 3238 of 2017 have been filed by complainant Dr. Ravi Agarwal and opposite parties Speed Post, Rajasthan University SO and anr. respectively against the order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.799 of 2016.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.09.2012, complainant Dr. Ravi Agarwal sent an application for the post of Asst. Prof. through Speed Post and last date for receipt of applications was 27.09.2012. On 28.09.2012 item was delivered (as per information supplied by the University).

3. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum Jaipur, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:—

“So, the consumer complaint against the opponent has been accepted and an exemplary compensation of Rs.10 lakhs (ten lakh rupees in words) has been imposed on opponent for the service deficiency and unfair trade practices performed by the opponent. From the amount Rs.5 lakhs (five lakh rupees in words) will be given to the consumer for his mental pain, financial loss and embarrassment whereas the remaining Rs.5 lakhs (five lakh rupees in words) will be deposited in Rajasthan State Consumer Welfare Fund. The consumer is also entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand rupees in words) for complaint expenditure. Time of one month has been given to comply with the order.”

4. The opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission partially accepted the appeal and reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.50,000/-.

5. Hence the present revision petitions by both the parties.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, postal department stated that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 liability cannot be fastened on the postal department, Government of India for misplacement or late delivery of a postal article. The services offered by the postal department cannot be compared with any courier services as the postal department is offering these services even in the remote areas of the country where no private player would like to go. Learned counsel further argued that the complaint can be filed within a period of 30 days with the department as per letter dated 14.06.1990 issued by D.G. Posts to all Chief PMGs/PMGs of the country, wherein the following has been mentioned:—

“(a) Enquiries regarding domestic Speed Post articles shall be accepted only within a period of ONE month from the date of booking of the article;

(b) Documents relating to domestic Speed Post service shall be preserved for a period of THREE months from the date of booking of the article at the Speed Post centre and another THREE months in the office of the SSRM.”

8. It was argued by the learned counsel for the postal department that in the present case, the complaint was not filed within one month from the date of booking of the Speed Post and accordingly, the record was weeded out as per the instructions. Therefore, when the complaint was filed before the District Forum, the department did not have any record to reply to the complaint.

9. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the postal department that under Rule 66 (B) of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, there is already provision for refund of the amount paid to the postal department for booking of the Speed Post article and the same was refunded to the complainant which was not accepted by the complainant. The learned counsel further referred to the following cases in support of his arguments:—

“(1) The Presidency Post Master & Anr. Vs. Dr. U. Shanker Rao, II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC).

(2) K. Neelambaran Vs. Post Master, Urkunnu & Ors., I (1991) CPJ 666.

(3) RP No.535 of 2015, Indian Postal Department Head Post Office Head Post Office

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTIf postal department is not inquiring into complaints received in respect of speed post after 30 days, department is not performing its duty.

IMPORTANT POINT
If postal department is not inquiring into complaints received in respect of speed post after 30 days, department is not performing its duty.