( Delivered on 31/10/2018)

Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member

1. This appeal challenges the order dated 22/10/2014,  passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gondia partly allowing the consumer complaint, bearing No.43/2013 and thereby directing the opposite party ( for short OP) City Main Post Office  through Assistant Superintendent  to pay the complainant Rs. 50,000/- with 9 percent  per annum interest from 17/02/2014 till its realization as compensation  for delay in delivery of post and further the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- more to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
2. The respondent Mr. Anilgiri Rameshgiri Shankaracharya is referred as complainant and appellant City Main Post Office through Assistant Superintendent, Gondia is referred as OP for the sake of convenience.
3. The facts in brief as set out by the complainant in his consumer complaint are as under.

1. The complainant Mr.  Anilgiri Rameshgiri Shankaracharya belongs to OBC category. He passed  12^th standard and completed ITI course of Turner  ( Mechanical Side) during the years 2000 to 2002. He had applied for the post of Miller Semi Skilled under Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Ordinance Factory Board, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (MP). The said department was to conduct a written examination for the candidates on 6/11/2011 at Jabalpur (MP). Therefore letter/Hall Ticket was sent by the concerned department through speed post on 27/10/2011. The said article/letter was received by the OP on 1/11/2011. The same was withheld by the OP in his office and not delivered to the complainant in time. The area post office that is Nagra Post office received the said envelope containing the above mentioned letter on 18/11/2011. The same was delivered to the complainant on 18/11/2011.
2. On receipt of the said letter, the complainant came to know that the written examination was already over on 6/11/2011. However he could not attend the same as he had received the hall ticket sent by speed post  only on 18/11/2011.
3. It is the contentions of the complainant that he had taken private coaching for months together and prepared for the aforesaid examination. He being belonging to the reserved category of Central Government, he would have qualified for the said government post. The complainant is 33 years old and it being the age limit prescribed by the Central Government, this was the last opportunity available to the complainant to appear for the said exam.
4. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, filed consumer complaint against the OP City Main Post Office and sought for Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the damage/loss caused to him on account of delay in delivery of the post article, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complainant in his consumer complaint has also sought for direction to the OP to take departmental action against the concerned employee.

4. The OP City Main Post Office Gondia resisted the complaint by filing its written version and denied all the adverse allegations  of the complainant. The OP has specifically submitted in its written version that the letter addressed to the complainant was booked at Jabalpur Factory and the same was sent by the General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur on 27/10/2011 and it was received at Gondia Bazar P.O. on 1/11/2011. The said article was not processed further and remained unattended till 18/11/2011, for the reason that at that time there was heavy receipt of Aadhar Cards that is near about 3000 to 4000 cards  were received for delivery. Under such situation the speed post article was inadvertently left behind unattended. The OP has also submitted that the complaint can be lodged  only by the sender of Speed post. In the present case, the sender is Ministry of Defence, Ordinance Factory Board, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur ( MP)  and there is no complaint filed by the sender. The OP therefore submitted that the complaint is not tenable. Therefore deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
5. The Forum after hearing both the sides and considering the evidence brought on record, partly allowed  the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum has specifically held that the OP, City Main Post office has rendered deficiency in service by the delayed delivery of speed post article. The OP has admitted in their written version that the speed post article remained unattended since 1/11/2011 till 18/11/2011. The reason assigned for the same cannot be accepted as the OP is under an obligation to deliver the speed post article on priority basis.
6. The OP City Main Post office being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this appeal and challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the complaint is unsustainable in law as according to the clause 78  of P.O. Guide, only sender can lodge a complaint and under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also the person who avails services is entitled to file the complaint. The compensation allowed by the Forum below is also exorbitant and therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. We heard counsels for both the sides and perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties. We also perused copies of the complaint, written version. We also perused authorities relied upon by the respondent  and documents filed on record.
8. We find that the appellant/postal department is rendering postal services. In the present case although the sender is not the complainant himself, he is affected due to the lapse in service rendered by it. Under these circumstances, it is assumed that he is the beneficiary of the services and he has been adversely affected due to deficiency in service. Hence complaint filed by him is maintainable in law.
9.   The appellant has also tried to take shelter of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which reads as:-

“ The Government shall not incur any liabilityby reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafterprovided, and 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 actor default.”

10. The OP in the written version filed before the Forum has admitted that Nagra Post office had received the speed post article on 1/11/2011 and the same remained unattended till 18/11/2011. In view of the above mentioned admission, the question of fraudulent, willful act, or default  can be inferred and said admission itself goes to prove the deficiency in service on the part of appellant. Undisputedly the appellant is under an obligation to deliver the speed post article on priority basis. The complainant is subjected to irreparable loss as he is deprived of further prospects for which he had availed coaching etc. We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
11. The respondent has relied on the following authorities.

1. Union of India Vs. Arjun Bhagat reported in I (2018) CPJ 332 NC. It is held in this case  that the postal department cannot take shelter against Section 6 of Post office Act especially in light of the fact that no plausible explanation was given for non delivery of letter. The attitude of the department creates a reasonable degree of probability that there was willful default on part of employees of postal department.
2. Senior Post Master Vs. Ramakant Jha, order of National Commission in Revision Petition No. 169 of 2018, dated 4/4/2018
3. Indian Post Department & anr. Vs. Monu Jhalani, Order of National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No. 2208 of 2017, dated 5/4/2018
4. Post Master General & Anr. Vs. Vikas Verma, order of National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2846 of 2017, dated 11/10/2017
5. Directorate of Postal Service Vs. Mohammed Safder, reported in I (20180 CPJ 1 ( UTA & N)

12. The authorities mentioned above from (b) to (e)  deal with the scope of section 6 of India Post Act, Rule 172 and 184 of Post Office Act about contains and insurance of parcel sent by post and delay in delivery of postal packet.
13. The ratio laid down in the above mentioned authorities are of no assistance to the respondent as in the present case,  the facts are different. In the case in hand, the delay in delivery by post is admitted by the appellant.
14. For the foregoing reason, the impugned order warrants no interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The impugned order dated 22/10/2014, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gondia in consumer complaint bearing No. 43/2013 is confirmed.
3. No order as to cost in appeal.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.