SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE Vs. RANGUNJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 20.2.1998, directing the opposite parties viz. the Postal Department to pay a sum of Rs.28,135/- towards balance cost of damaged consignments of garments to the complainant together with compensation of the sum of Rs.7,000/-. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the Postal Department can claim immunity for loss of the consignment under Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the complainant was that it sent a consignment containing 16 sets of Salwar Suits, to Jaipur, Rajasthan through speed post. The said consignment was posted at Park Street P. O. and it was required to be delivered to the consignee at Jaipur. At the time of booking the consignment at Park Street P. O. , the weight of the parcel was 9,900 gms. The said parcel was tendered for delivery to the consignee at Jaipur but the latter refused to accept it on the ground that it was in mutilated condition and some of the articles were taken out from the parcel. The said parcel was returned to Park Street P. O. and the complainant demanded open delivery. On weighment it was noticed that the weight of the parcel was 4,150 gms. and some of the articles were found missing. It was found further that some of the garments were in damaged condition. According to the complainant, the total value of the garments booked through speed post was Rs.36,535/-. As some of the articles were found in damaged condition, the complainant has laid his claim for a sum of Rs.28,135/-. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Postal Department is not liable for any loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission under Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that since the consignment was booked through speed post, Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act is not applicable and the Department cannot claim immunity from any liability. It appears that the Forum held that Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act does not operate to preclude the claims for compensation being made against the Postal Department for non-delivery of articles despatched by speed post. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Department levies substantial extra charge for articles despatched through speed post and as such it cannot avoid any liability. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a case of Sudha CS V/s. The Post Master General, G. P. O. and Ors., 1997 2 CPJ 519, and another case decided by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in a case of Sr. Post Master, G. P. O. and Ors. V/s. Harjinder Singh, 1997 1 CPJ 378. Therefore, on the authority of the said decisions and having considered the fact that the speed post is a special contract we think that the case does not come within the purview of Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act. It appears that the Postal Department has acknowledged the fact that the speed post is a special service of the Department where an undertaking is given for delivery of the article within a fixed time frame. It has further been acknowledged in their Circular dated 10.10.1995 that no provision has been made so far for loss or damage etc. to articles despatched through speed post. The Forum has extracted the whole of the Circular issued by the Directorate. So, we need not quote it again. Suffice it to say that the speed post is not covered under Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act and as such the Department cannot avoid liability on the strength of this section.

(3.) In the said Circular, provision has been made for payment of compensation of Rs.200/- only in case of loss or damage to the contents of domestic speed post articles. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in view of this provision the complainant can, at best, get a compensation of Rs.200/- only and not beyond it. It appears that the self-same argument was advanced before the Forum but the latter overruled the contention in this behalf. The Forum noticed that Sec.74 of the Indian Post Office Act, however, empowers the Central Government to make any Rules to carry out any of the purposes and objects of the Act. But the Circular which was extracted by the Forum in extenso in the judgment has no legal force because it was merely a Circular and not a Rule framed by the Central Government. It appears that the matter was elaborately discussed by the Forum and we are in complete agreement with the legal proposition. We think that the said Circular cannot be regarded as a Rule and so it has no binding force. Consequently, we think that the Forum has rightly rejected the contention raised in this behalf. According to the Forum the amount of compensation of Rs.200/- for loss or damage to the contents of speed post article is too inadequate. The Forum noticed that the principle of payment of suitable compensation had been acknowledged and accepted by the Directorate. But while fixing the amount of compensation, a paltry amount of Rs.200/- is not only arbitrary and capricious but is grossly inadequate. We are in full agreement with the views of the Forum. For the reasons aforesaid we think that the Postal Department does not enjoy any immunity for loss of contents of articles sent by speed post. The Department is obliged to pay reasonable compensation for the loss or damage to the contents of the articles sent by speed post.