RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No.2274 of 2005
Rajan Tandan s/o Sri S.D.N. Tandan,
R/o A-84, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly. ….Appellant.
Versus
1- The Secretary, Department of Posts &
Telecommunication, Govt. of India,
New Delhi.
2- Post Master General, U.P. Circle,
Bareilly.
3- Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Bareilly.
4- Post Master, Izzatnagar Post Office,
Bareilly. …Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Smt. Bal Kumari, Member.
Sri Arun Tandan for the appellant.
Dr. U.V. Singh for the respondents.
Date 21.7.2015
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.3.2005, passed by the Ld. DCDRF-II, Bareilly in complaint case No.159 of 2003, the appellant Rajan Tandan has preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of the decretal amount under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has
(2)
been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice and the complainant be given the reliefs sought by him in the complaint otherwise he will suffer irreparable financial loss.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant/complainant sent a Speed Post vide Receipt no.EE633702 on 27.3.2002 to the Registrar, High Court, Delhi. It has been alleged that the envelop contained application for appointment in Delhi Judicial Services. The last date for receipt of the application was 30.3.2002, whereas the Speed Post reached its destination on 1.4.2002 and therefore, the Registry refused to accept the same. Accordingly, the same was returned to the sender with the remark of refusal by the addressee. Consequently, the appellant could not appear in the examination. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service arising out of belated delivery of speed post by 2-3 days, complaint case no.159 of 2003 was filed for redressal of his grievances. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,05,000.00 as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/OPs.
The respondents/OPs submitted that the Speed Post reached its destination on 1.4.2002. Since the addressee refused to accept the same, therefore, it was returned to the sender. As such, there was not deficiency in service or remiss on its part. The Forum below after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint in part and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,000.00 as compensation with pendentelite and future interest @ 9% p.a. Aggrieved
(3)
by this order, the appellant/complainant Rajan Tandan has filed the instant appeal for enhancement of the decretal amount.
We have heard both the parties and have gone through the records. Admittedly, the speed post was despatched on 27.3.2002 and it reached its destination on 1.4.2002. It took 4 days time to reach its destination. The addressee refused to accept it as it reached the office after the last date of receipt of form and, therefore, it was returned to the sender. There is no dispute in this regard. We have given due consideration, the law relating to Speed Post matters has been discussed at length by the Hon'ble National Commission in Speed Post though General Manager, Speed Post Office, GPO Building, Jaipur vs. Laxman Singh, 2010 NCJ 309 (NC) in which it has been laid down that:
"After introduction of the speed post services, there had been amendment to statutory rules in 1986 and Rule 66(B) was introduces w.e.f. 1.8.1986. Added to this, in terms of Circular No.F.No.43-4/87-D/BDD, dated 22.1.1999, issued by General Manager (Marketing) addressed to all Chief Post Masters General, in the event of loss of speed post article, loss of contents or damage to the contents, the compensation payable to this customer will be double the speed post charges or Rs.1,000.00 whichever is less.
The provisions of Section 6 of the Post Offices Act and also the guidelines contained in Circular noticed above, were considered by the National Commission also in case of Head Post Master, Post Office, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana Vs. Vijai Rattan Aggarwal 1986-2005 CONSUMER 9144 (NS).
(4)
The ratio of decision of this case was followed in other decisions also by National Commission including case of State of Haryana Vs. Leela Ram reported in IV (2008) CPJ 146 (NC). Now it is well crystallized by catena of decisions of National Commission that for delay in delivery of articles, as per statutory provisions, compensation shall be equal to composite speed post charges paid, and Consumer Fora cannot grant compensation more than what is statutory fixed and also that consequences flowing from delay in delivery has no consequences in matter of award of compensation beyond what is statutory fixed."
In view of the rulings laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, we are of the considered view that the appellant was only entitled to receive double the amount of Speed Postal Charges of Rs.30.00 or Rs.1,000.00 whichever was less, as admittedly, the appellant paid Rs.30.00 towards stampage and, therefore, he was entitled for Rs.60.00 only; but the Forum below certainly erred in law in awarding him a sum of Rs.1,000.00 as compensation with pendentelite and future interest @ 9% p.a. This award was certainly not permissible under the law. However, the respondent Postal Department has not preferred any appeal against the same, therefore, in view of ruling laid down in Tika Ram Khanan vs. Indian Postal Department, IV(2007) CPJ 123 (NC) at para 10, we are not inclined to interfere in it. The appellant has failed to establish a prima-facie case for enhancement of decretal amount. Consequently, the appeal, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.
(5)
ORDER
The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Bal Kumari)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri PA II
Court No.4
