Remember the case of Puran Chandra Joshi of Tarikhet, Almora? Thanks to the speed post service, it took nine days for a letter to travel from Delhi to Tarikhet. In the process, Joshi lost an employment opportunity 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 four air tickets which were sent to him from Indore by speed post did not reach on time. Worse, when he sent his son to the GPO, three of the employees even asked him for illegal gratification and on failing to get it, refused to hand over the packet! In the case of Joshi, the department of posts escaped liability for its negligent service availing of the limited liability clause provided 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. However in the case of Gupta, since it was not just a case of deficient service, but also of 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. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 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. However, this immunity does not apply if it is the result of fraud or willful act of default on the part of the employee.

The case has its origin in the air tickets sent to Gupta. The tickets were meant for travel on May 26, 1998 and they were sent by Speed Post on May 22 from Indore. When it failed to arrive on the morning of May 26, Gupta sent his son to the GPO. Here, apparently, three officials of the post office demanded bribe for delivering the letter and refused to hand over the packet because he could not pay the money.

In its order, the apex consumer court made some scathing remarks about the behaviour of the three postal staff. It also remarked that “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, it reduced the compensation amount from Rs 16,000 (awarded by the lower consumer courts) to Rs 10,000. It also did not award any punitive damage, which is most unfortunate (Chief Post Master, Delhi, GPO vs Ram Avtar Gupta, RP number 1659 of 2000).