SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES Vs. S MUTHUKALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter relates to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Post Office in delivering letters to the proper party.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the Appeal are as under: A letter addressed to the complainant was given for despatch on behalf of the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Kombai under Certificate of Posting along with 8 other Tapals, addressed to persons at outstations on 23.4.2002. The Tapal relating to the complainant was sent to Madurai RMS instead of the complainant s place of residence in Kombai, Uthampalayam, Theni District. The Tapal related to a tender notice. Because the complainant did not receive the tender notice, he could not submit his tender terms in time and in the process he lost in the race. The complaint came to be filed making a demand for Rs. l lakh as compensation, Rs. 50,000 for mental agony, Rs. 500 for legal notice in all Rs. 1,55,000.

(3.) THE defence set up was that by mistake the Tapal got mixed up and was sent to Madurai RMS. It was also contended on behalf of the opposite parties Post Office that it was the mistake of the Executive Officer of the Panchayat in not sending the tender notice by Registered Post but choosing to send the same under Certificate of Posting. Further though the tender notice was dated 19.4.2002, it was given for posting only on 23.4.2002. According to the opposite parties if really the Executive Officer of the Panchayat intended to cause safe delivery, he should have sent the Tapals on the 19th itself and of course by registered post. He washed off his hands just by creating the record that the Tapals were sent under Certificate of Posting. Tapals sent under Certificate of Posting did not give any guarantee for timely delivery. The customary practice for Tapals addressed locally would be to deliver them by hand with the acquittance of the parties in a note book register maintained for the purpose. The Tapal was received by the complainant on 26.4.2002. If really he was interested in submitting the tender, he could have met the Executive Officer and explained how he did not get the tender form on 25th and requested the E.O. to furnish a Form for him as a special case so as to submit the tender which closed only at 4 p.m. on 26.4.2003. The complainant had not sent anything as to what steps he took in this regard. Further the Executive Officer of the Panchayat was a proper and necessary party in the proceedings. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Clauses 32 and 33, Sub -para 1 and 2 Section X of the Post Office Guide Part -I envisaged the object in granting "The Certificate of Posting" that it was only to afford the public an assurance that letters and articles entrusted to servants or messengers for posting had actually been posted. Those Tapals were not treated as registered Tapals. They were treated only as Tapals that had been posted in a letter box. In the event of loss, damage or delay, the certificate would confer no claim for compensation.