Commission casts consumer net on postal dept

Commission casts consumer net on postal dept

CHANDIGARH: In a landmark judgment, UT state consumer commission brought the postal department under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, stressing that in case of deficiency in service, it could be taken to task. ‘We want to make it clear that Section 6 of Indian Post Offices Act does not provide blanket immunity or protection to post office employees. As it is apparent from the facts of this case, postal officials feel secure under this provision and adopt a very arrogant and irresponsible attitude towards consumers,’ held UT state consumer commission headed by justice Pritam Pal, while deciding an appeal in favour of complainant Mohan Singh, a retired deputy chief engineer from Air India. Finding the department deficient in service, the commission directed National Speed Post Centre (NSPC), Chandigarh, to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation to Singh. Singh had stated that in February 2008 he had mailed an air ticket to his son in London through speed post, but it was not delivered. Singh said he sent a letter to Chandigarh postal authorities, claiming his son had to purchase another ticket due to the lapse. However, when he did not receive a reply, Singh filed a complaint with district consumer forum and sought compensation for harassment. Singh stated that he be entitled to one air ticket every year, which could be used either by him or members of his immediate family. NSPC officials cited Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, which states that the government or post office would not incur any liability for loss, misdelivery or damage to any postal article in course of transmission. They also stated that Singh’s article had been further consigned to International Speed Post Centre, Delhi, but said they had not received any response from there. They added that they had also informed Singh about that. The district forum had held that as the Indian Post Office Act protected officials from any liabilities, no compensation could be awarded to Singh. However, as postal officials were ready to pay double the speed post charges, the forum directed them to pay Rs 1,562 along with Rs 2,500 as cost of litigation to Singh. Hoping against hope, Singh knocked the doors of state commission and sought compensation. Accepting his appeal, the commission held that this conduct of officials constituted a deficiency in service due to non-delivery of the article itself. The commission stated, ‘In such cases, as the complainant has no means to prove that the neglect was wilful or malafide, it is for the post office to prove it acted with due diligence and efficiency. And if something goes wrong despite that, postal officials cannot be held guilty.’

source- Times of India