Statutory immunity under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, does not protect postal authorities from liability in cases of wilful default or deficiency in service, such as entrustment of delivery to unauthorized outsiders resulting in loss of opportunity.

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 56/2019

ORDER DATED: 04.02.2026

(Against the Order in C.C. 55/2016 of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Idukki Division, Thodupuzha-685 584

2. The Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Peermade Sub Division, Peermade- 685 531

3. The Postmaster, Kattappana HO-685 584

(By Sandeep R.P, Authorized Representative)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Roy C.K., S/o C.T. Kuruvila, Chakkinchira House, Appappikada, Kochera P.O., Idukki-685 551

(Party in person)

2. K.S. Mohanan, Post Master, Kochera P.O.

(By Adv. B. Vasudevan Nair)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

1. The appellants are opposite parties 2 to 4 in C.C. No. 55/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant applied for a permanent post of a Technical Assistant in a semi Central Government organization through the National Employment Service (Kerala), District Employment Exchange, Kattappana. The complainant was successful in the interview and hence he was directed through a call letter to appear before the District Employment Officer, Kattappana on 27.03.2015 at 11a.m. with his registration card and original certificates for verification. The letter dated 20.03.2015 issued to the complainant in this regard was received in the Vandanmedu post office on 23.03.2015. The Kochera post office, which was the branch office of the Vandanmedu post office, ought to have served the said letter on 23.03.2015 or on the next day. However, the letter was retained by the postal authority with ill motive and thereafter, the letter was delivered to one Binoy Joseph on 27.03.2015 at about 5.30 p.m., which was collected by the complainant subsequently and hence, the complainant could not appear before the Employment Officer as stated in the letter. Consequently, the complainant lost a permanent job in the semi-central Government service.

3. The opposite parties filed a joint version admitting the receipt of the post card by the Vandanmedu post office on 23.03.2015. However, it was contended that the said notice was delivered to the complainant on 23.03.2015 itself through Mrs. Sobhana, the delivery agent of Kochera branch office. The statement of the said Sobhana was recorded in the enquiry conducted by the Postal Department and in the statement, she stated that when she went to the house of the complainant for delivery, the house was found vacant. Therefore, she deposited the post card inside the house. There is nothing on record to prove the allegation of the complainant that the letter was delivered to one Binoy Joseph on 27.03.2015. In the said circumstances, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4. Before the District Commission, PW1 and PW2 were examined for the complainant. Exhibits P1 to P5 were also marked for the complainant. The opposite parties did not file any proof affidavit. The opposite parties also did not adduce any evidence. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the said circumstances, the District Commission allowed t