RESERVED    

        STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                      APPEAL NO. 792 OF 2015

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

                 No. 236/2012 of the District Consumer Forum, Sitapur )

Superintendent of Post Offices

Sitapur Division

Sitapur

   ...Appellant

                                                     Vs.

Ranbir Pratap Singh

S/o Sri Bhojpal Singh

R/o Village Tapkapur

Post Salarpur

Pargana/Tehsil/District Sitapur

                                                                                         ...Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

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

For the Respondent                  :   Sri Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate.

Dated :  13-07-2017

                                                  JUDGMENT

       PER MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT 

        This is an appeal 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. 236/2012 Ranbir Pratap Singh V/s Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitapur whereby District Consumer Forum has allowed said complaint partially and ordered opposite party of complaint to pay Rs.25/- paid as postal charges with compensation of Rs.1,500/- to complainant within one month from the date of judgment . The District Consumer Forum has further ordered that interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be paid on the said amount from the date of complaint till date of payment in case said amount is not paid within stipulated period.

Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum opposite party Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitapur has filed this appeal before State Commission.

Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Counsel appeared for appellant.

Sri Amit Kumar Verma, learned Counsel appeared for respondent.

:2:

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is against law and evidence.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has further contended 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.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that appellant is ready to pay compensation as provided by rule 66(b) of Indian Post Office Rules 1933.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed appeal and contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law and no interference in it is justified.

I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.

Indisputably respondent/complainant has sent letter on 05-10-2010 through speed post of opposite party to Homoeopathic Medicine Board, Nabibullah Road, Lucknow which was delivered to the said addressee on 12-10-2010 few dates later than the period prescribed by postal department for delivery of speed post letter.

It has been contended by respondent/complainant that he had sent application for admission in training programme to be conducted by Homoeopathic Medicine Board. The last date of submission of application was 11-10-2010 but the letter was delivered to the Medicine Board by opposite party on 12-10-2010 after expiry of last date fixed. As such he was deprived of opportunity of admission in said training.

In view of above facts the District Consumer Forum has held that respondent/complainant is not entitled to get compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- as prayed by him in complaint. However, the District Consumer Forum has

:3:

held that complainant is entitled to refund of postal charges paid by him alongwith compensation of Rs.1,500/-.

To examine the correctness of the judgment of District Consumer Forum reference of Section-6 of the India Post Office Act 1898 appears relevant which reads as follows:-

“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 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.

In view of facts mentioned above it is obvious that the letter of respondent/complainant has been delivered to the addressee by appellant/opposite party within seven days of its despatch and there is no averment in complaint to the effect that the appellant/opposite party has made delayed delivery wilfully or deliberately. As such appellant/opposite party is entitled to benefit of Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 quoted above.

Further more rule 66(b) of India Post Office Rules 1933 as amended by Notification No.  GSR-40(E) dated 21-01-1999 provides that 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. In view of this provision of rule 66(b) of Indian Post Office Rules 1933 the respondent/complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.25/- the postal charge paid by him and the District Consumer Forum has rightly passed order to

:4:

refund this amount of postal charge to respondent/complainant. Moreover the appellant is ready to refund this amount to respondent/complainant.

In view of discussion made above I am of the view that Rs.1,500/- awarded by the District Consumer Forum to the respondent/complainant as compensation is not sustainable in view of above provision of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898. As such it is set aside.

In view of conclusion drawn above appeal is allowed partly. The impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is modified and appellant/opposite party is ordered to refund Rs.25/- the postal charge paid by respondent/complainant to him.

In complaint as well as appeal both parties shall bear their own costs.

The appellant shall refund the said Rs.25/- to the respondent/complainant within 30 days from the date of this judgment through money order and shall produce receipt of money order before State Commission. Thereafter the amount deposited by appellant under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal shall be refunded to the appellant alongwith interest accrued.    

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

( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

Pnt.