UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANWAR AHEMAD QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE U. P. Urdu Academy, Lucknow through its Press Advertisement solicited Urdu Literature Books from all over India, published between 1-1-95 to 31-1-95 for selection of award of cash prize. The last date of receipt of the books was nominated on 15-1-96 till 5. 00 p. m. The books were to be sent in 8 copies and, accordingly, the complainant who wanted to be nominated for such prize, sent 8 copies by post parcel under the Speed Post on 8-1-96 from Akola Post Office. He was given postal receipt No. 394, and he was charged Rs. 155/- on the basis of the weight. However, to his most frustration and astonishment, he received back the parcel on 27-1-96, appearing the mark of the Academy "refused" as having been received after 15-1-96. The refusal date is 22-1-96. The complainant contended that because of the laxity and inefficiency on the part of the Postal Authorities and in spite of parcel being booked under Speed Post on payment of Rs. 155/-, his book could not be considered for award of prize. The Award of Prize could have enhanced his reputation as a Urdu Poet through out the Country. But for the in-efficiency on the part of the Postal Authorities, the book could not be considered.

(2.) AS against the order of the District Forum, the Postal Authorities have come before us in appeal and the learned Counsel for the Postal Authorities has drawn our attention to the Zerox-copy of the outer cover of the Speed Post Parcel which bears the endorsement "last Date - 15-1-96 : Refused Date 22-1-96. The Urdu Academy to which the book was addressed made this endorsement. The learned Counsel as contended that the complainant put wrong address as "qadar Baug" and not as "quaisar Bagh" and that is why there was delay. Apart from that, reliance is heavily placed on section 6 of the Indian Post Act. The National Commission in the case of (Sr. Supdt. of Post Office v. Consumer Rights Protection Council), in Revision Petition No. 175 of 1992 and 247 of 1992, held that although the Speed Post is a recent concept, the same is still covered by section 6 of the Indian Post Act and that section 6 of the Indian Post Act clearly protects the Postal Authorities in case the parcel is lost during transit. The learned Counsel contended that on both these counts, the order of the District Forum deserves to be set aside.

(3.) WHEN we have gone through section 6 of the Indian Post Act, we find that the protection is extended to the Postal Authorities. But the same provision also provides that if the loss is caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default on the part of the Officer of the Post, the claim shall not be defendable. We have indicated above that, according to the learned Counsel for the Postal Authorities, the address was not proper and that instead of Quaisar Baug the address that was found was Qadar Baug. The complainant tendered before us the facsimile of the outer cover of the said parcel and we find that the word is "quaisar Bagh". We have taken this on record at Ex. "a" whereas Ex. "b" is a zerox copy tendered by the appellant Post Authorities. On close scrutiny, we find that the word "quaisar Bagh" is changed to "qadar Bagh". This is clearly an over writing and manipulation on the part of the Postal Authorities to explain the delay. We are not at all satisfied with this contention on the part of the Post Authorities. We hold that the original address was Quaisar Bagh and not Qadar Bagh. Apart from that the address is fairly extensive. It read as "the SECRETARY, U. P. URDU ACADEMY, BALEHRA HOUSE, QUAISAR BAGH, 21 - R. K. TANDAN ROAD, LUCKNOW - 226 001. " With such address, it is unlikely that the Postman could not find this Academy even if for moment, we hold that the address was "qadar Bagh", 21- Tandan Road is fairly clear enough to locate the address of the Urdu Academy. We find that the contention raised by the Post Authorities is a dishonest and smacks of suspicion. Alterations in the letters of address, disables the appellant to defend the case of delay. We are, therefore, unable to extend the legal immunity of section 6 of the Indian Post Act. We, therefore, find that in these circumstances, the award of compensation by the District Forum is quite proper.