|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember the case of Dr Puran Chandra Joshi of Tarikhet, Almora? Thanks to the speed post service that took nine days from Delhi to Tarikhet, Joshi lost a job that he was waiting for all his life. Here is the case of Ram Avtar Gupta of Delhi, who had to cancel his travel plans because the speed post, through which four air tickets were sent to him from Indore, did not reach on time. Worse, when he sent his son to the GPO, three of the employees wanted a bribe and on failing to get it, refused to hand over the packet. In Joshi’s case, the Department of Posts escaped liability for its negligent service using the limited liability clause in the archaic Indian Post Office Act. But in Gupta’s case, even the Post Office Act could not save the service provider. Let me explain. In March this year, while deciding the case of Joshi, the apex consumer court had quoted the Indian Post Office Rules which limited the liability of the post office in such cases to the composite speed post charge paid and said that in view of this, the consumer courts could not award any compensation for deficiency in service. (Union of India Vs Dr Puran Chandra Joshi, revision petition no 114 of 2005,) However, in the case of Gupta, since it was a case of not just deficient service, but also misuse of power by the postal employees, the consumer court used the exception clause in Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act to award compensation. This section states that no officer or employee of the Central Government incurs any liability for misdelivery, loss, delay or damage to any mail or goods sent by post. The immunity does not apply if it is the result of fraud, or wilful act of default on the part of the employee. The case has its origin in the four air tickets sent to Gupta. The tickets, for travel on May 26, 1998, were sent by speed post on May 22 from Indore. However, they did not reach the addressee even on May 25. Worried, Gupta made enquiries from the GPO and was told that the mail would reach him by 7 pm. When it failed to arrive even on the morning of May 26, Gupta sent his son to the GPO to collect it. Here, apparently, three officials of the post office demanded Rs 1000 for delivering the letter and, subsequently, reduced it to Rs 500 and refused to hand over the packet because he could not pay the money. An aggrieved Gupta filed a complaint before the District Forum (North District ) in New Delhi, which asked the post office to pay Rs 16000 — Rs 12,000 for the tickets that could not be used, Rs 3000 as compensation and Rs 1000 as costs. It directed the Chief Post Master to recover the money from the three officials. It also recommended that the officials be punished for corrupt practice. Following this order, the GPO filed an appeal before the State Commission and when it was dismissed, a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In its order, the apex consumer court made some scathing remarks about the behaviour of the three postal staff. Referring to the Post Office’s submission that an inquiry had found that the employees were not guilty, the Commission said: "In our view, it is unfortunate that in such an apparent case, in departmental inquiry, officers get benefit. In these proceedings, for us, it is not necessary to decide whether the concerned officers were guilty or not. In our view, it is proved beyond doubt that the letter was intentionally and fraudulently not delivered to the complainant at his address or was not handed over to his son, who, beseeched the officers for its delivery." The Commission also remarked, "This case illustrates how a public functionary can act maliciously and exercise the power which results in harassment and agony to the citizen." However, after all these observations, the apex consumer court reduced the compensation amount from Rs 16,000 to Rs 10,000 (including the cost of litigation) on the ground that by cancelling the air tickets, the complainant was entitled to get back the money spent on them. It also did not award any punitive damage, which is most unfortunate. (Chief Post Master, Delhi, GPO Vs Ram Avtar Gupta, revision petition number 1659 of 2000, decided on June 1, 2006).
|
