SENIOR POST MASTER GPO Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harjinder Singh sent a letter addressed to the Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, containing application, postal order, etc. for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police through 'speed post registered AD' on 31.7.1993. It did not reach the addressee in time inasmuch as the last date for submission of such applications expired on 5.8.1993. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh, ordered for refund of the postal charges Rs.21/- cost of application form, other misc. expenses, and damages to the tune of Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.5,588/- together with interest @ 18% per annum on 8.8.1996. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

(2.) It is now an admitted fact that the speed post letter was entrusted to the appellant on 31.7.1993 at its office located in Sector 22, Chandigarh and it was delivered at Patiala on 11.8.1993. The last date for receipt of applications expired on 5.8.1993. On behalf of the appellant, it has been argued that mere on account of delay the appellant should not have been held liable and it was protected under Sec.6 of the Indian Post Offices Act. This contention is not acceptable because in this case the application for a post was not sent by ordinary post but by 'speed post registered AD' No.088 of 31.7.1993. It is a matter of common knowledge that the distance between Chandigarh and Patiala is scarcely 70 kms. The Post Master, Stn. Kachiguda and Ors. , HPO V/s. C. Hanumantha Reddy, 1986-95 Consumer 1293 (NS) decided on 24.3.1994 by the National Commission held the Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act does not operate to preclude claims for compensation being made against the Postal Department for non-delivery of articles despatched by speed post because the Postal Department undertakes to deliver the articles within specified period of time and in consideration thereof a substantial extra charge is levied. Thus the appellant was under a special obligation for quick delivery of such a letter.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a DO letter dated 4.8.1994 addressed by Senior Post Master of Patiala to Senior Post Master of Chandigarh containing the details that Speed Post Box containing this letter was received at Patiala on 10.8.1993 and it was delivered to the addressee on 11.8.1993. At the end of this letter there is a mention that mail arrangements were disturbed during those days on account of floods/rains. This letter allegedly written about 8 months after the filing of the complaint does not exempt the appellants from the responsibility, they had undertaken nor this letter establishes that there was physical disability, in delivering this letter at the premises where office of the Public Service Commission is located at Patiala. There was no evidence that the premises of the office were inaccessible even for a day during the period in question.