Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
G.D. Sharma, President and Khalid Hussain, Member
AMIT VERMA - Appellant
Versus
SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES AND ANR. - Respondents
File No. 2910 of 2007
Decided on : 16-04-2008
Mr. Kapil Verma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that wilful delay in the delivery of postal services can constitute deficiency in service, entitling the affected party to compensation under the Indian Post Office Act.
Headnote:
Speed Post - Delay in Delivery - Indian Post Office Act, 1898 - Section 6, Clause 84 of Post Office Guide Part 1, Rule 66(b) of Indian Post Office Rules - The court discussed the unexplained delay in the delivery of the speed post parcel, the liability of the postal department, and the definition of a consumer under the Indian Post Office Act. The court found that the delay of 11 days was wilful and amounted to deficiency in service, falling outside the statutory protection guaranteed under Section 6 of the Post Office Act. The appellant was deemed a consumer and was awarded compensation for mental harassment and financial losses.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant qualified for the second stage examination of Civil Services Examination, but the speed post containing the requisite form was delivered late, causing him to incur mental agony and financial losses. The appellant sought compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service, litigation expenses, and actual expenses incurred for making a forced journey.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in the delivery of the speed post parcel constituted deficiency in service, and the appellant was entitled to compensation for mental harassment and financial losses.
Issues: The issues included whether the unexplained delay in the delivery of the speed post parcel constituted deficiency in service, whether the appellant qualified as a consumer under the Indian Post Office Act, and whether the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act overrode the application of other provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay of 11 days was wilful and amounted to deficiency in service, falling outside the statutory protection guaranteed under Section 6 of the Post Office Act. The appellant was deemed a consumer and was awarded compensation for mental harassment and financial losses.
Final Decision: The court accepted the appeal and directed the respondents to pay compensation to the appellant in the sum of Rs 50,000 for mental harassment and financial losses, and Rs. 5,000 as litigation charges.
ORDER
G.D. Sharma, President - Order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the learned Divisional Forum, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forum) has been taken in appeal by the appellant. The case of the appellant in brief is that he had qualified to appear for the second stage examination of Civil Services Examination and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) had fixed the date of said examination for 21.10.2005. On 8.8.2005, UPSC sent him the requisite form through speed post which was to be delivered at his home address. The case of the appellant is that the said Form was delivered at his residence on 23.8.2005. As per the procedure prescribed by the UPSC the said form was required to be deposited in the office of the UPSC on 22.8.2005. In case of non-delivery of that Form to an eligible candidate upto the fixed timelimit of 15.8.2005, then he was required to contact at once either the Commission or the "Facilitation Counter" for getting the new one. It is alleged that the appellant had been daily visiting the Sub-post Office, Nagrota which is located in his home town upto the last date of 15.8.2005. On 19.8.2005, the appellant contacted on telephone the office of UPSC at Delhi and informed the concerned officials about the non-receipt of the requisite form. In response, the officials of the UPSC directed him to come personally to collect the form. Thereafter on the same day i.e. on 19.8.2005, the complainant went to Delhi and collected the " Form" which could not be filled by him there on the spot because certain entries could not be made because of non-availability of relevant record. He was thus compelled to come back to Jammu on 20.8.2005 and left for Delhi on the next day, i.e. on 21.8.2005. After completing the formalities of filling the "Form", he submitted the same in the office of UPSC on 22.8.2005. It was on 23.8.2005 that appellant received the "application form" at his home address though another duly filled in form already stood deposited by him in Delhi. It is also alleged that eleven days delay was wilful as a result of negligent conduct. In the normal course of conduct, the Form should have been received within 6 to 8 days from its date of despatch. The respondent in their written version have admitted that the speed post in question was received in Railway Mail Service (RMS) Bhawan, Jammu on 10.8.2005 but it was misplaced and with great efforts could be located on 21,8.2005. It is further stated that speed post parcel in question was sent through speed post from Post Office Centre RMS Bhawan, Jammu to CRC, Jammu on 22.8.2005 and was received at "Kandoli Nagrota Branch" of the OPs on 23.8.2005 where it was delivered to the appellant on the same day.
2. The appellant had claimed the following reliefs:
1. Rs. 50,000 for mental agony.
2. Rs. 50,000 for deficiency in service.
3. Litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 5,000.
4. Recovery of actual expenses incurred for making forced journey from the place of residence to the office to UPSC, Delhi and back to home and again to Delhi with requisite documents: Rs. 2,300.
The respondents had admitted the delay on the plea that speed post parcel remained untraced for 15 days in RMS Bhawan, Jammu but have denied their liability to reimburse the appellant as the case was governed under the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 read with Clause 84 of Post Office Guide Part 1 and read with Rule 66(b) of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933. A conjoint effect of the legal position which he has projected can be that the appellant herein could be paid compensation equal to composite speed post charge paid by him. The learned Forum in the impugned order has held: "There is no explanation given as to why article in question remained in speed post centre from 10.8.2005 to 21.8.2005 and the delay has not been explained at all". However, it denied the relief to the appellant on the plea that under the relevant law laid down under the Indian Post Office Act and rules f
