SENIOR POSTMASTER, KALBADEVI, MUMBAI Vs. JOHN GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Kottayam in C.C. No. 343/09 dated 21st October, 2010. The appellants are the opposite parties those who prefers this appeal under directions of the Forum below that ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation by the opposite parties also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant as litigation costs. The respondent is the complainant in the above case. In brief, the dispute is in connection with a speed post letter No. E.M. 19876558 1 IN was send by M/s. Chleshi Chellaram Shipping private limited Gazdar House 3rd Floor 629 - A Shankar Sheth, Road, Mumbai- 99 on 24.10.08, addressed to the complainant Moolavattam P.O., Kottayam from Kalbadevi, H.P.O., the complaint is alleging none delivery of the above mentioned speed post article which was received by the first opposite party and registered under No. 10000 ? 11765 on 3.11.08 and an immediate enquiry were taken up. The speed post cover contained somany valuable documents in connection with the employment of the complainant in abroad. The postal article did not traced out or mis delivered. It was irrecoverable loss. Hence the complaint. The opposite parties appeared and contended that the registration of the speed post was admitted. At the same time they contended that the rules governing booking and delivering of articles double the amount of charge or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is less is declared to be paid to the center in the event of loss of speed post article. They also contended that as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, the government shall not be incur any liability by the reason for loss, mis delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in post or transmission by post except in so far such liability may express terms to be undertaken by the Central Government as herein. After providing no fees to the opposite party, officer shall incur any liability by reason for such loss, mis delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. The aforesaid speed post letter in question was suspected to have been lossed in transit, sanction for the payment of the eligible compensation ie. Rs. 50/- paying double the speed post charges has been issued to the centre of the article by the Senior Post Master, Kalbadevi memo dated 18.2.2010. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complainant. The Forum below considered all evidences adduced by the complainant marked Exts. A1 to A17 and taken a view that the opposite party admitted the loss of the article only question to be decided is with regard to the quantum of the compensation. The Forum below found that there is deficiency in service in the part of the opposite party then they are liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. The Forum below ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- as a compensation for the inconveniences and sufferings and Rs. 2,500 as cost of litigation within one month from the date of the copy of the order. The Forum below passed the above impugned order and this appeal prefers from the above order passed by the Forum below. On this day, this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing his authorized representations of the appellant and the counsel for the respondents are present and they submitted their own case in detail. The authorized representatives of the appellant argued the appeal on the grounds of Appeal Memorandum that the loss of the article is an admitted fact but as per the Section 6 of The Indian Post offices Act, they only entitled to give compensation either Rs. 50/- being double the speed post charges has been issued to the center of the article. He argued that the Forum below have no right to discard the section VI of the Indian Post Office Act which is passed by the Parliament. Hence he prayed for allow this appeal and to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The authorized representative of the appellant is also submitted the copy of the one judgment of this same bench of this commission for perusal. We this commission examined the entire documents available in the case bundle and heard in detail. We are seeing that the judgment of this bench of this Commission is not discussing the similar fact of the case. We are discussing here. That case was par from the fact and circumstances of this case. It is not way applicable to this case. Another document produced by the appellant that is a notification issued by the ministry of communication. This document also is no way substantiating the argument of the appellants in the fact of the case. There is no single action taken by appellant/postal authorities regarding the missing of the speed post article against the concerned officers. We are also seeing that there is no action was taken by the appellants against any officer, those who responsible for the loss of the article. The Section 6 of Indian Post Offices Act is not applicable in the similar fact of the case. Here the appellant is liable to explain what happened to the postal articles send to the complainant. They bound to explain what enquiry was initiated regarding this matter even though it contained very so many important documents including Passport, Visa etc. In this circumstances, we are seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is strictly accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. It is legally sustainable. There is no apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below. directed to We are uphold this order. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below are directed to suffer their own respective costs.