Dismissed

Sunil Ojha S/O Sh. Amar Chand v. Chief Post Master General

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2020SAW/467/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court Bench held that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 applies to cases where mail is delayed or missed, even if returned to the sender. The court rejected the appeal and upheld the High Court's order setting aside the Lok Adalat compensation.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed with no interference in the impugned order dated 21.1.2019.

Sunil Ojha S/O Sh. Amar Chand Vs Chief Post Master… — Consumer Protection | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 467/2019

¶3

Sunil Ojha S/o Sh. Amar Chand, 2/574 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chief Post Master General, PMG Office, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur

¶7

Sr. Superintendent Post Officer, Jaipur Division, Station Road, Jaipur

¶8

Post Master, Post Office, Session Court, Bani Park, Jaipur

¶9

Jila Vidhik Seva Pradhikaran, Jaipur City, Jaipur Through Registrar

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur (through VC)

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶14

Judgment

¶15

01/12/2020

¶16

This special appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.1.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9306/2007, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents has been allowed and the order dated 10.8.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat has been set-aside.

¶17

Facts of the case, as per appellant-respondent (for short, 'the appellant') are that he applied for the post of Tax Return Preparer in the Income Tax Department and sent the

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[SAW-467/2019]

¶20

envelop containing his application form by ordinary post on 18.11.2006 affixing the stamp of Rs. 12/- thereon. Last date of closing the applications was 24.11.2006. The said envelop could not be reached on 24.11.2006 at the proper place and was returned to the sender. It was alleged that due to this negligency of the respondents-petitioners (for short, 'the respondents'), the appellant could not get the opportunity to participate in the selection process and became unemployed. The appellant filed a complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat. The respondents filed a reply thereto and it was stated therein that sanction for refund of Rs. 12/- towards affixing postal stamp on envelop was issued by them and the said amount was refunded to the appellant. The Permanent Lok Adalat vide its order dated 10.8.2007 allowed the complaint filed by the appellant and directed the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 11,000/- to the appellant. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed the writ petition before this Court, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.1.2019 and the order dated 10.8.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat has been set-aside. Hence, this appeal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (for short, 'the Act of 1898') does not apply to the facts of the instant case for the reason that in this case, the envelop was returned, whereas Section 6 of the Act of 1898 deals with exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of any postal parcel in the course of transmission by post, which is not the situation here in this case. Hence, the impugned

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[SAW-467/2019]

¶24

order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and reasonable. She submits that it was a case of mis-delivery or delay and as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1898, no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1898 as also in view of the judgment passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Post Master and another Versus Rajesh Nag and another (SB WPC No. 312/2005) has rightly allowed the writ petition, hence no interference therewith is required by this Court.

¶26

Heard. Considered.

¶27

Admittedly the envelop was returned to the appellant and Rs. 12/- towards affixing stamp on envelop were also refunded to him. From the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that if the appellant had dispatched the envelop containing the application form and it did not reach at the proper place within the given time, it was a case of missed delivery or delay. For the aforesaid reason, Section 6 of the Act of 1898 does apply to the facts of the instant case. In view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1898 as also in view of the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Post Master and

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[SAW-467/2019]

¶30

another Versus Rajesh Nag and another (supra), the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition.

¶31

For the aforesaid reason, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 21.1.2019 and find no force in this appeal.

¶32

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby

¶33

dismissed.

¶34

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶35

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

¶36

DILIP KHANDELWAL /21

Sunil Ojha S/O Sh. Amar Chand v. Chief Post Master General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Ojha S/O Sh. Amar Chand v. Chief Post Master General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Swami S/O Dhirendra Kumar Swami Vs Union of India

Daya Singh Lahoriya S/O Shri Kripal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu@Salim S/O Shri Sakur Khan B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawani Singh Rathore S/O Fef Singh Rathore Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hari Ram Son of Shri Chunni Lal Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Mitharwal S/O Suraj Bhan Singh Vs Rajasthan Co-Operative Department