* Calvin Jacobs son went to the local post office to despatch 267 invitation cards for his daughters wedding. His son entrusted the franking and posting of the cards to the counter clerk. At the wedding, Jacob was taken aback at the poor attendance; when he made enquiries with some of the persons to whom he had addressed the invitations, he learnt to his dismay that none had received them!
* Manoj Kumar Chopra had applied for a job in the Indian Air Force. He was selected and a letter of appointment was posted to him asking him to report by a specified date. But the letter was delivered to another person and the Air Force cancelled his appointment for his failure to report on duty on the date specified.
* V P Sardana sent a registered parcel to Mhow from Pune. The parcel was lost in transit and never reached the addressee.
More From This Section
All these are cases where consumers suffered a loss because of unreliable service on the part of the postal department. The frustration one has to face when letters sent by post are not delivered, or are lost, or misplaced, or are wrongly delivered is aggravated by the attitude of the Postal Department when consumers take up the issue. As there is no record of the posting of letters or their receipt, consumers face an uphill task in bringing the authorities to book. The most they can ask for is a certificate of posting but even that cannot ensure the actual delivery of letters.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 gave people the hope that they would be able to take the postal authorities to task when guilty of deficient service. That, however, has not happened.
Why do consumers find themselves so helpless against faulty postal services? There is a single reason for this: the existence of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898. This vestige of our colonial past provides absolute immunity to the officers of the Post Office from any liability arising out of the loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article unless they have caused it fraudulently or it has occurred due to their wilful act or default.
In Manoj Kumar Chopras case the immunity provided to postal officers by virtue of this Section was successfully upheld by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission before whom the appeal against the order of the District Forum was filed. The State Commission held that the officers were exempt from any liability unless it was established that the misdelivery was caused fraudulently or by their wilful act or default. As no evidence could be garnered to prove this, the Commission rejected Chopras complaint.
In V P Sardanas case, the District Forum actually allowed his complaint and the State Commission later confirmed that order. The National Commission on revision, however, reversed the orders of the forums again invoking Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and holding that there was no allegation that the article was lost by any fraudulent or wilful act or default of any official of the Postal Department.
However, in Calvin Jacobs case ((1994)2 CTJ 676 (CP)) the National Commission rejected the argument of the postal authorities based on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act on the ground that the invitation cards in that case were actually handed over to the clerk for despatch and were not posted by him at all.
Ironically, at a time when accountability and reliability in the postal services sector takes on a growing importance, the postal authorities, by invoking Section 6 of the archaic Indian Post Office Act of 1898 have shielded themselves from any action against them even for obvious lapses. Unless, of course, the consumer can prove that the negligence occurred due to fraud or wilful act or default of an officer of the post office a task virtually impossible to establish.
Justice V B Eradi, former president of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has voiced his concern at retaining laws such as Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which conflict directly with consumer interest and impede the implementation of the Consumer Protection Act. Speaking at the national convention of the presidents and members of the state commissions, secretaries of the state food and civil supplies departments, Justice Eradi said, These provisions were enacted at that time to protect the interests of the imperialist British government and they are totally out of tune with the altered state of things presently existing in modern India. The existence of this statutory bar against the award of compensation is resulting in gross injustice to consumers. It is highly necessary that urgent steps should be taken for the repeal of these anachronistic and obnoxious provisions.
After posting letters it is naturally assumed that they will reach the destinations safely and on time. Non-delivery must lead to action against the Department. But Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, which was intended for the benefit of those who committed bonafide mistakes, is now being routinely utilised to shield those guilty of dereliction of duty. For aggrieved consumers, only the repeal of this archaic provision can retrieve the situation.
Rosy Kumar (The author is an advocate and editor of the Consumer Protection and Trade Practices Journal)