DEVI ENGINEERING CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of a complaint filed by the respondent -herein before the District Forum, Krishna at Machillipatnam seeking to recover a compensation of Rs. 20,000 / - from the Union of India represented by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Vijayavada on the ground that an envelope containing two demand drafts for Rs, 10,000/ - drawn on Syndicate Bank despatched by him from the Post Office at Vijayavada by Registered Post on 6.4.1992 addressed to Conico Radio Corporation, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was not delivered to the addressee and he has subsequently come to know from the Syndicate Bank that the amounts covered by those Demand Drafts were paid by the drawee Branch on 10.4.1992 to some third party. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - to the complainant with interest. On an appeal preferred by Union of India before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh, the State Commission upheld the plea of the appellant that in view of the provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, the opposite party could not legally be made liable for payment of any compensation. The District Forum had not considered the plea which had been raised before it based on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. In support of its conclusion that the claim for compensation was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the State Commission relied on the decision of this Commission in the Presidency Post Master and Aw. v. Dr. U. Shanker Rao, II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC). Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint the complainant has preferred this Revision Petition. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads : "The Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, mis -delivery or delay or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in expressed terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided, and no office of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reasons of any such loss, mis -delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default". In Presidency Post Master & Anr. v. Dr. U. Shankar Rao (supra) which has been relied upon by the State Commission, this Commission by a composite order disposed of two Revision Petitions namely R.P. Nos. 175 & 247 of 1992 which involved similar points. The facts of the case which gave rise to R.P. No. 247 of 1992 are almost identical with those that are before us in the present case.

(2.) IN R.P. No. 247 of 1992 the complainant had sent a consignment of hand loom towels to M/s. Renuka Hosiery, Calcutta through Economic Roadways Corporation and he sent the original lorry receipt relating to the said consignment from the Post Office at Sellur to the Syndicate Bank, Calcutta by Registered Post with acknowledgement due. The Acknowledgement Slip was not received back by the complainant. It was latter learnt by him that the registered letter was not delivered to the Bank and that some other person had taken delivery of the consignment from the transporter on the basis of the original lorry receipt. The complainant thereupon approached the District Forum seeking to recover a compensation of Rs. 3,500/ - from the Postal Department for non - delivery of the registered envelope and its contents. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Postal Department to pay the amounts claimed by the complainant. An appeal filed by the Postal Authorities was dismissed by the State Commission, Tamil Nadu confirming the decision of the District Forum. On the matter being brought up before this Commission in the Revision Petition filed by the Postal Department, this Commission in paragraph 11 of its order extracted Section 6 of the Indian Postal Office Act and held that the complaint was not maintainable in view of the clear mandate of Section 6 "that the Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, mis -delivery, or delay or damage, to any postal article in course of transmission by post...". The said decision has been subsequently followed by this Commission in a number of other cases.

(3.) IT is noteworthy that the last portion of Section 6 where reference is made to loss, misdelivery etc. caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default has relation only to the personal liability of an individual "officer of the Post Office" who may have been responsible for such fraud/wilful act or default. There is no allegation in the present case that the loss or misdelivery occurred on account of fraudulent or wilful act of any particular postal employee.