RESERVED    

        STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                      APPEAL NO. 793 OF 2015

        (Against the judgment/order dated 13-03-2015 in Complaint Case

                 No. 237/2012 of the District Consumer Forum, Sitapur )

Superintendent of Post Officer

Sitapur Division

Sitapur

   ...Appellant

                                                     Vs.

Mukesh Kumar Singh

S/o Sri Dinesh Pal Singh

R/o 566 Narayan Nagar

Hempurwa, Near Shiv Mandir

Post Sitapur, Pargana Tehsil and

District Sitapur.

                                                                                         ...Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER

For the Appellant                     :   Dr. Uday Veer Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent                  :         None appeared

Dated :  15-09-2016

                                                  JUDGMENT

       PER MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT 

        Present appeal has been filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 13-03-2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 237/2012 Mukesh Kumar Singh V/s Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitapur whereby District Consumer Forum has allowed said complaint partially and has ordered opposite party to pay postal charges of Rs.29/- alongwith compensation of Rs.1,500/- to complainant within one month. The District Consumer Forum has further ordered that in default of payment of said amount within period prescribed the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till date of actual payment.

Present appeal has been filed by appellant, Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitapur who is opposite party of complaint whereas complainant of

:2:

said complaint is respondent in this appeal. 

Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Counsel appeared for appellant. None appeared for respondent inspite of sufficient service of notice.

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused impugned judgment and order as well as records of the case.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and order is against law and evidence.

It has further been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the complaint moved by respondent/complainant before District Consumer Forum is not sustainable in view of Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that appellant was ready to pay compensation provided under the Statute in view of Rule 66(b) of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933. As such, nothing more could be awarded by District Consumer Forum.

We have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant.

In brief, according to complaint version of complainant is that he sent application for Pharmacist Training to Homeopathic Board, Nabibullah Road, Lucknow through speed post of appellant/opposite party on 05-10-2010 but the same was delivered to the addressee on 12-10-2010 with delay. Therefore, he could not be considered for Pharmacist Training.

The appellant/opposite party has admitted that the envelop sent by respondent/complainant was delivered to the addressee on 12-10-2010.

It has been stated on behalf of appellant/opposite party that delivery of speed post may take 4 to 6 days time in normal condition but in case of bulk the delivery may take some more time. As such, there has been no negligence in case of delivery of speed post sent by respondent/complainant.

Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1998 reads as under:-

“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 insofar as such liability may in express terms

:3:

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 of default.”

In the case of Union of India and others V/s M. L. Bora reported in 2011 (2) CPC-179 the Hon’ble National Commission has held that Section-6 grants complete immunity to the Government for the loss, misdelivery or damage to the postal articles unless same is caused fraudulently or by wilful act of default.

After having gone through Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 as well as above pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the case of Union of India and others V/s M. L. Bora it is apparent that the government or its employee may incur liability for loss, misdelivery or delayed delivery only if it has been caused fraudulently or by wilful act of default but there is no averment in complaint to the effect that delayed delivery has been caused fraudulently or by wilful act of default.

Rule 66B was introduced by Central Government in Indian Post Offices Rule 1993 with effect from 01-08-1986 which reads as under:-

“66-B. Indian speed post service – Inland Postal articles may be booked after obtaining receipts, therefore, at the places specified in Column (1) of the schedule below and at the post offices specified in the corresponding entries in Column (2) of the said schedule for delivery under the Inland Speed Post Service subject to the following conditions namely:

Rule 66B of Indian Post Office Rules 1933 was further amended by notification No. GSR-40(E) dated 21-01-1999 which inserted the following conditions after condition No.(5) which reads as under:-

“In case of any delay of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the Department of Post from time-to-time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charge paid.”

 The appellant is ready to refund speed post charge to complainant in terms of above Rule 66B.

In view of above, we are of the view that appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer

:4:

Forum should be set aside but a direction should be issued to appellant/opposite party to refund speed post charges paid by the respondent/complainant within two months from the date of this judgment by money order.

In view of above, the appeal is allowed with a direction to the appellant/opposite party to refund speed post charges paid by the respondent/complainant within two months from the date of this judgment by money order. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is modified accordingly.

The amount deposited by appellant Insurance Company under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal shall be refunded to appellant alongwith interest accrued on producing receipt of money order sent to respondent/complainant.    

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.   

                                                                                          ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                ( SMT. BAL KUMARI )

                                                                                                               MEMBER                                                          

Pnt