UNION OF INDIA Vs. NEHA CHANDRAKANT SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 30.8.2002 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchmahals in Complaint Application No.289 of 2001 directing the opponent Postal Department to pay to the complainant compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- on the head of mental torture and hardship and for loosing opportunity of getting a job and cost quantified at Rs.500/-, in all Rs.5,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. and penal interest at the rate of 15% p. a. It was the complainant's case before the learned Forum that she had applied for a job with the Industrial Training Centre, Vadodara who had issued a letter of interview on 4.10.2001 fixing interview on 20.10.2001. But, unfortunately for the complainant, she received it on 27.10.2001. She, therefore, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Postal Department resulting into loss of opportunity for her to appear for the interview on 20.10.2001. She, therefore, claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. The opponent Postal Department resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the complainant could not be said to be 'consumer' in the eye of law, that it had statutory protection under Sec.6 of the Indian Post Offices Act and that even otherwise the complainant would not be entitled to compensation as prayed for. The learned Forum after considering the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that there was inexcusable delay in delivery of the postal article to the complainant and she missed the opportunity of appearing at the interview. With regard to compensation, the learned Forum has held that although the complainant missed the opportunity to appear at the interview, it was not certain that she would have been selected for the job. Thus, the learned Forum impliedly held that the claim was remote in nature. The learned Forum however proceeded to award compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- as aforesaid.

(2.) We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We are not entering into the detailed facts which are set out in the complaint. The ultimate finding of the learned Forum is that the opponent Postal Department was negligent in the matter of delayed delivery of the postal article in question. If that is so, the Postal Department was clearly covered under the exemption clause appearing in Sec.6 of the Indian Post Offices Act. Sec.6 would read as under : "exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- 2. [the Government] shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to, any postal article in course of its transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the 1 [central Government] as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. "

(3.) There is another aspect of the matter. Despatch of postal article was by the authority to which the complainant had applied for a job. The complainant herself had not hired the services of the Postal Department. The concerned authority had despatched the article under Postal Certificate. Relevant Rule with regard to such a mode of postal service is Rule 32 of Indian Postal Guide. It lays down that the object in granting certificates of posting is to afford the public an assurance that letters and other articles entrusted to servants or messengers for posting have actually been posted. The grant of a certificate will not, however, mean that the letters and articles in respect of which the certificate is issued were fully prepaid with postage stamps, nor will it guarantee in any way the despatch of the articles entered in the certificate on the same day, unless they are handed over well in time to catch the last despatch of mails for the day for the particular destination concerned. It is also recited in the Rule that the articles in respect of which such certificates are issued are not registered and that they are treated in exactly the same manner as if they had been posted in a letter box. Thus, the Rule clearly indicates that it is an ordinary despatch and not in any way guaranteed by the Postal Department. It is in this respect that the decision of the National Commission in the case of Hajarimal Moonat V/s. Superintendent, Post Offices Service Department, 2003 1 CPJ 177 (NC) will assume importance and in our considered opinion will have to be followed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Honourable National Commission has held that in view of Sec.6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, no liability could be imposed on the Postal Department in a case where deficiency of service is alleged in respect of postal despatch by ordinary post. In our considered opinion, the learned Forum clearly appears to have overstepped the position of law in this respect.