The petitioner/complainant sent a letter by Regd. Post to the Sarpanch of a place, namely, Jobra in District Jajpur. The said letter having not been delivered for about 2 months and 20 days, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the respondents, i.e.,  Supdt. of Post Office, Branch Post Master, Jobra and EDDA, Jabra seeking compensation.

2.      The respondents filed a written version contesting the complaint and took a preliminary objection that in view of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, they were not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. On merits it was alleged that the Regd.  Letter could not be delivered as the addressee was found absent and the same was returned to the complainant.

3.      The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

4.      The issue involved in this petition was considered by this Commission in Revision Petition No.3125 of 2016 – Post Master & 2 Ors. Vs. Sarbeswar Sahoo, decided on 9.10.2017 and the following view was taken:-

“4.     It is not in dispute that the parcel was delivered by the respondent / complainant to the petitioners for being delivered to the brother of the complainant in Orissa.  It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid parcel has been lost.  The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation for the loss of the parcel and if so, what would be the amount of the said compensation.

5.     Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as under:

        “6.    Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, 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.     Rule 170 of the Post Office Guide Rules reads as under:

        “170. Compensation (1)

        The Head of the Circle may grant to the sender, or at his request to the addressee solely as an act of grace, and not in consequence of any legal liability compensation upto a limit of Rs.50 for the loss of any inland letter, packet, packet or parcel, or its contents or for any damage caused to it in course of transmission y post, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the prescribed registration fee shall have been prepaid in addition to the postage.
2. That the application for compensation shall have been made within three months of the date of posting of the article in the case of loss of the article, and within one month of the date of delivery of the article in the case of loss of contents or damage.
3. That the amount of compensation shall not exceed the actual amount of the loss or damage and that such amount can be referred directly to some loss or damage.
4. That the decision of the Director-General on all questions of compensation shall be final”.

 Rule 172 enables insurance of valuable letters and parcels upto Rs.10,000/.  On a conjoint reading of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, along with Rule 170 extracted hereinabove, it is evident that only an ex-gratia amount can be paid by the Head of the Circle in the case of the loss of a parcel and no compensation based upon the value of the parcel is payable unless the parcel is duly insured in terms of Rule 172, in which case, the value of the insured article is to be restricted to Rs.10,000/-.  The complainant had not got his parcel insured at the time it was delivered to the post office for carrying to the place of his brother in Orissa.  Therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation and only the ex-gratia amount already sanctioned by the petitioner is payable to him.

7.     In the Post Master, Imphal & Others Vs. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband Revision Petition No. 986 of 1996, the compensation for delayed delivery of postal packets was awarded to the complainants / respondents.  Being aggrieved from the award of compensation the Post Office approached this Commission by way of a revision petition.  Allowing the revision petition, the Five-Members Bench of this Commission inter-alia held as under:

        “The Section very clearly lays down that 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 provided by the statute 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.  There are some provisions in the Act where specifically Government has been made liable to pay compensation for the lost postal articles.  For Example, Section 33 categorically says that subject to such conditions and restrictions, Central Government shall be liable to pay compensation for insured postal article.  But where there is no such specific provision in the Act for payment of compensation, Section 6 grants complete immunity to the Government for liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to the postal articles.  The second part of Section 6 deals with individual liability of the Postal employees but states that 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.  In this case there is no allegation that the Post Master or the Director or the Director General was guilty of fraud or wilful act or wilful default which led to non-delivery of the postal article.  An officer of the post office may be held liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage if it can be proved that he has caused such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage by some fraudulent act or wilful act or default.  In other words, the person who has committed the offence can be sued for damage but no action will lie against either the Central Government or any of its officers vicariously for the wilful act or default of the dealing clerk or postal peon”.

 “It is to be noted that the judgments of the Courts are based on two fundamental principles.  One is the absolute protection afforded to the Government and also the Governments servants who had not dealt with the postal articles themselves by Section 6.  The other is the nature of postal service provided by the Government.  The postal service provided by the Government extends throughout the territory of India.  A letter sent from the remotest village in Kashmir will reach the addressee at the outer most point of Kanyakumari.  A vast network has been built by the Government to provide this service.  It has been emphasised that by posting a letter or handing over a packet at the post office for transmission to the address of the addressee, the sender does not enter into any contract with the Government.  The sender really avails of a service statutorily provided by the Government.  It is true that postage stamps have to be affixed but that is for augmentation of Government revenue. It is not in the nature of a price paid for the service”.

 “That apart acceptance of the contention of the complainant will lead to disastrous consequences.  Assuming that 10 lakh postal articles are posted all over Indian every day (the figure must be much more) and in 1% case there is delay in delivery or loss of the postal packet, if the Government has to pay compensation for 1,000 delayed packets a day and if, as in this case, compensation of Rs.20,000 is awarded, the Government will have to pay compensation of Rs.21 crores a day which will come to Rs.730 crores a year.  No Government can bear the brunt of this sort of liability in rendering a valuable public service to the people.  Either the postal service will have to be closed down or the charges enhanced drastically to bring home nearly another Rs.800 crores of revenue.  It may be noted that we have no correct figure of letters and postal articles sent all over India.  Accordingly to a judgment of Division Bench of the Kerala High Court to which we shall presently refer it must run into billions.  The Government gives much more in service than it gets in revenue.  That is the reason for enacting Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act which gives absolute protection to the Government against any claim for damages on account of loss of a postal article except in cases and to the extent to which it has been specifically provided in the Act itself.  As the Supreme Court has pointed out the Post Office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of the sender for sending of the postal articles to the addressee.  It is really a branch of the public service subject to the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act and the rules made thereunder”.

 “In other words, the view adopted in all these decisions is that the relationship between the sender of a postal article and the post office is governed by the Indian Post Office Act that not by law of contract or tort.  There is no liability at all for loss or non-delivery of a postal article except in so far as the specifically provided by the statute under Section 33 and Section 6 or any other regulation or rule.

        A further question is because this Commission deals with cases of deficiency of services, does the sender of a postal packet acquire any special right under this Act?  The answer has to be in the negative.  There cannot be any special right against the express provision of the statutes”.

 “The scope of Section 6 was once again examined by this Commission in the case of The Presidency Post Master Vs. Dr. U. Shankar Rao, II (1993) CPJ 141(NC).  In this case an argument was made that the provision of Consumer Protection Act was not fettered by the provisions of any other Act.  It is an additional remedy and, therefore, delay in delivery of postal article or non-delivery of postal articles which causes a loss to a complainant can be redressed by this Commission.  This argument was negative by holding “After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that the argument of the learned counsel for the respective Revision Petitioners has force.  It was rightly argued that Section 3 of the Act clearly lays down that the provisions of the Act are in addition to but not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.  This shows that the Act provides additional means of obtaining remedy by a consumer but if the remedy is barred under any other Act, then the various forums constituted under the Act cannot grant the remedy prayed for”.

The Commission also referred and explained the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and held that the complaint petitions were not maintainable against the Presidency Post Master and Another in view of the Act and that section.

        In the case of Senior Postmaster, G.P.O. Pune Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat & Anr. a registered parcel sent from Pune to Mau was lost in transit.  It was not delivered to the addressee.  A case of negligence in the service was brought against the postal department and the Senior Postmaster, G.P.O. Pune.  The complaint was entertained and damage was awarded by the District Forum, which was upheld by the State Commission.  This Commission, however, reversed the decision by holding that Section 6 bars the claim of the complainant.  There was no allegation that the article was lost due to fraudulent or wilful act of the official against whom the action was brought unless these are alleged and proved by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief by way of compensation for loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to a postal article in the course of its transmission.  The complaint, therefore, was held liable to be dismissed”.

5.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the Fora below.      The respondents, however, shall pay the ex-gratia amount, if any, sanctioned under Rule 170 of the Post Office Guide Rules, to the petitioner/complainant within six weeks from today, unless the said ex-gratia amount has already been paid. The revision petition stands disposed of.