This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Post and Telegraph Department & Anr. against the order dated 20.02.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan  (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.117/2016.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant sent speed post on 15.12.2010 and it was promised to be delivered on next date, however, the same was delivered on 20.12.2010.  The speed post contained notice to the Municipal Commissioner, Jaipur. The complainant, therefore, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum being Complaint No.521/2013 (Old No.711/11)  and the District Forum vide its order dated 17.11.2015 directed the opposite party Postal Department to refund the speed post charges Rs.34/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.11,000/-.  The opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA No.117/2016.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. 

3.      Hence the present revision petition.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.  Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this revision petition has been filed with delay of 37 days and the delay has occurred due to obtaining higher orders to file the revision petition.  The inter-departmental consultation has also contributed to this delay.  The delay is inadvertent and without any mala fide.  It was requested to condone the delay.

5.      On merits, learned counsel stated that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 following is mentioned:-

 “6.Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery 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 hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.”

6.      On the basis of the above, learned counsel argued that the consumer forum did not have any jurisdiction to order the compensation to the complainant.

7.      Learned counsel further informed that in the execution proceedings, all the amounts were deposited and the same have already been released to the respondent/complainant.

8.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.  So far as the question of delay of 37 days is concerned, delay is condoned on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

9.      Now coming to the merits, it is seen that this Commission in RP No.2979 of 2017, Dr. Ravi Agarwal Vs. Speed Post, Rajasthan University & anr. and RP No. 3238 of 2017, Speed Post Rajasthan University  & anr. Vs. Ravi Aggarwal, decided on 13.02.2019 (NC) has observed the following:-

“15.      Moreover, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 clearly states that the exemption provided under this Section is not applicable where the Central Government has undertaken such liability in express terms.  In the scheme of speed post, the Central Government has undertaken the liability of delivery of the speed post article within a certain period of time and has also taken the liability of refund of the speed post charges if item is not delivered or misdelivered or there is delay in delivery.  Hence, as per the provision contained in the Section itself, this Section does not seem to be applicable in the matters of deficiency in the delivery of speed post articles. 

17.        In nut shell it can be said that the person who has sent the speed post is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he has paid the speed post charges for getting the services of the speed post delivery.  Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the remedies under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional remedy available to a consumer.  As seen above, in the case of speed post, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not seem to be applicable, the remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.  Hence, as observed by this Commission in Post Office, Hissar (Through Superintendent of Post Offices) Vs. Shri Dilwan Singh, (supra), the District Forum and State Commission are empowered to award compensation to the complainant.”

10.    It is further seen that the order of the District Forum has already been complied with by the petitioner/opposite party in the execution proceedings.  The respondent has also expired. Moreover, the amount involved in the case is only Rs.31,000/- and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani & Anr., IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC), the petitioner department should have desisted from filing the present revision petition keeping in view the meagre amount.

11.    In above circumstances and the legal position as explained above, I do not see any opportunity to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.02.2017 of the State Commission and consequently the Revision Petition No.2198 of 2017 is dismissed.