POST MASTER IMPHAL Vs. JAMINI DEVI SAGOLBAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Petition against an Order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), Manipur, Imphal. By this order, the State Commission disposed of two appeals (Appeal Case No. 11 of 1993 and Appeal Case No. 12 of 1993) arising out of two different orders passed by the District Forums. In both the cases, compensation has been awarded to the complainant for delayed delivery of postal packets to the National Tutorial, Bombay. The allegation of the complainant is that the postal packets contained original B.A. certificate and the examination form duly filled in alongwith the examination fee of Rs. 375/- in draft. The Registration was done at Imphal Head Post Office. Because the registered letter did not reach its destination in time, the complainant was not allowed to sit at the examination. She claimed that she has suffered mental injury, financial loss and loss of better service prospects. Her specific case as recorded in the order of the State Commission is that "due to the mistake committed by the dealing assistant of the Imphal Head Post Office, the registered letter containing the said original B.A. certificate and other requisite documents did not reach its destination and the opposite parties, being the authorities of the Postal Department, were vicariously liable for the negligence; she claimed Rs. 99,000/- as compensation for the same". The claim of the complainant was made against the Post Master, Imphal Head Post Office, Director, Postal Services, Imphal and Director General of Post and Telegraph Services. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, the opposite party stated that registered letter No. 1211 was booked by Imphal Head Post Office on 7.8.1992 and that the said registered letter was properly listed, packed and despatched on 8.8.1992. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the Imphal Post Office. It was also pleaded that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. It was further pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and Clause 81 of the Post Office Guide. The State Commission held that the complainant was clearly a consumer in that she had hired the services of the post office.

(2.) On the point of negligence it was held by the State Commission that the registered letter was listed by the dealing assistant as VPL which is a very ordinary form of despatch exposing it to a far greater risk of being lost in transit or mis-sent. Neither the dealing assistant nor the postal clerk appeared in the witness box to explain as to why the letter in question was listed as VPL. The State Commission held that there was clear negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the dealing assistant or the postal clerk for which the respondents were vicariously liable.

(3.) Coming to Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act the State Commission expressed the view that provisions of the Indian Post Office Act were intended to protect those who had committed bona fide mistakes and not those who are guilty of dereliction of duty and callous indifference in performance of the function. In this case, the dealing assistant/postal clerk had sent the registered article as VPL which is a very ordinary form of despatch exposing the article to a far greater risk of being lost in transit. This was a clear case of negligence for which the Director General as well as the Director of the Postal Services as also the Post Master must bear vicarious liability.