Wrong delivery of parcel an offence

Pushpa Girimaji

ANY postoffice that takes pride in its work would feel ashamed to admit that it sent a mail meant for one continent to another. But here is a post office which argued before the court that delivering a speed post packet meant for Chicago to Paris did not constitute deficiency in service. Claiming that it happened "inadvertently," it sought shelter under the immunity granted under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, and argued that it cannot be held liable for its actions.

On April 16, 2005, Sharanjit Singh Bahm’s daughter paid Rs 425, and sent an application by speed post to the Joint Commission on National Dental Examination, Chicago, US. She had completed her BDS course and was anxious to take this examination, and even left for the US on May 8, 2005, thinking that she could collect the roll number for the examination personally. The last date for sending the application was June 6, and the examination was to be held on July 17, 2005. In other words, the application was sent 50 days before the last day for submission.

Yet, the speed post failed to deliver. A month after dispatch, on May 18, to be specific, the packet was returned to the sender in an open and mutilated condition with the remark "mis-sent". What had happened to the mail during this time? Instead of going to the US, it had been dispatched to France. Even then, if the service was really ‘speedy’, it could have gone to the correct address in Chicago, and well in time. But that did not happen.

Angry and upset over this turn of events, the student’s father filed a complaint before the district forum, seeking a compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh. The district forum awarded only Rs 5,000, but the post office was unwilling to accept even this small liability for its inaction. It filed an appeal before the state commission, and later, the national consumer disputes redressal commission.

Dismissing the revision petition filed before it, the national commission pointed out that first of all, the Postal Department sent the article to France, instead of the US. Even after that, instead of redirecting it to the country of destination, it was sent back to the original addressee. This was nothing but a wilful act and constituted default on the part of the department, for which the immunity granted under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act did not apply.

Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act states that no officer of the post office shall incur any liability for wrong delivery, loss, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. So the national commission in this case held that the exception to the immunity clause applied in this case and, therefore, the post office could not escape liability. The commission also chastised the Postal Department for choosing to file appeals before the state commission, and later the national commission, thereby, harassing the client, instead of paying the small compensation amount awarded by the district forum. It awarded Rs 10,000 as costs to the consumer. (Snr Supdt of Post Offices, GPO Building, Chandigarh, vs Sharanjit Singh Bahm, RP No 2693 of 2006, decided on May 14, 2009).

HOME