POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT vs RANDHEER CONSTRUCTIONS CO.

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 29.2.2000, in Complaint No. 28/1999 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja (hereinafter called ''District Forum'' for short) whereby the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the tender form sent through speed post, Rs. 40/- as speed post charges and Rs. 500/- as cost of the litigation.

IT is now not in dispute that the complainant/respondent No. 1 in response to the tender issued by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had despatched his tender form by speed post on 24.11.1998. Receipt was issued by the appellant. According to the complainant the delivery of the said envelope should have been made within 24 hours of the despatch. However, the said envelop was not so delivered. The same was returned by the respondent No. 2 stating that the envelop has been received after the due date i.e., 28.11.1998, hence it was being returned. The complainant averred that he suffered loss as his tender did not reach the respondent No. 2 within the time prescribed by him. According to the complainant Rs. 40/- were paid by him towards the speed post charges. The complainant/respondent, therefore, claimed total compensation of Rs. 4,41,000/- as also refund of the tender form charges of Rs. 1,000/-, speed post charge of Rs. 40.00 as also costs of the complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the appellant.

THE learned District Forum held that there was negligence on the part of the appellant by delayed delivery of the said envelop. Accordingly the District Forum awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, Rs. 1,000/- as the cost of the tender form and Rs. 500/- as cost of the complaint. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the provision of Indian Postal Act, 1898 and the statutory rules framed in respect of speed post, the complainant was only entitled to reimbursement of the speed post charges. Learned Counsel for the appellant in the above context relied upon the judgment of National Commission in The Director, Postal Services A and N Islands, Port Blair and Another v. Miss Shyamali Ganguly; IV (2003) CPJ 65 (NC), as also on the decision of the Gujarat State Commission in Union of India and Another v. Purshottam V. Moorjani and Others, IV (2003) CPJ 749.

AS noticed earlier, the relevant facts not in dispute are that the envelop containing in the tender form was despatched by him on 24.11.1998 and that the same did not reach the addressee respondent No. 2 till 28.11.1998, which was the last date for receipt of tenders, hence the same was returned back to the sender-respondent No. 1. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has based his claim for compensation etc. on the averment that the envelope should have been delivered within 24 hours. Since the appellant has failed to deliver the envelope within the above time limit, the complainant has claimed damages etc. due to default delivery as above. It may be noticed that the delay in delivery of postal article despatched by speed post, would not entitle the complainant to any compensation in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which provides that the Govt. shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery 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. It appears that inland speed post service was created with the introduction of Rule 66-B in the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 and was made effective from 1.8.1996. These rules were further amended by Notification No. GSR 40 (E) dated 21.11.1999. The following condition was added after Condition (5) of Rule 66-B: "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 the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is less."

NATIONAL Commission in Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana v. Vijay Rattan Aggarwal by its order dated 18.9.2002 in Revision Petition No. 15/1997 and others; has held that Section 6 of the Post Office Act exempts any liability of the postal authorities in case of delay etc. unless loss or delay is caused fraudulently or wilful act or default. It was further held that under the statutory rules framed in respect of speed post article, in case of delay in delivery of the speed post article, the maximum that can be done is to reimburse speed post charges. The NATIONAL Commission in the case of Miss Shyamali Ganguly (supra) referred to its decisions in Post Master G.P.O., Pune v. Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat and Another, II (1995) CPJ 230 (NC) and Vijay Rattan Aggarwal, (supra) and observed that the delayed delivery of speed post article would entitle the complainant to be reimbursed with speed post charges. It would also be clear from the above condition that maximum compensation statutorily payable would be Rs. 1,000/- or double the speed post charges whichever is less, in case of loss or damage of speed post article or contents thereof.

IN the instant case, the learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 1 has produced a pamphlet issued by the Postal Department which indicates that the complainant is entitled to double the speed post charges in case of delay or non-delivery of the speed post article. Similarly the Gujarat State Commission in the case of Union of INdia and Another v. Purshottam V. Mooriani and Others (supra), observed that in case of delayed delivery of speed post article, the complainant would be entitled to the amount of composite speed post charges, which would not exceed double the amount of the speed post charges. Accordingly, it appears that the complainant/respondent No. 1 is only entitled to get double the speed post charges paid by him. The complainant/respondent No. 1, therefore, would not be entitled to get any other compensation or refund of tender form charges, as directed by the District Forum.

The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Instead of the order of the District Forum, it is directed that the appellant shall pay to the complainant/respondent No. 1 double the speed post charges amounting to Rs. 80/-. The appellant shall also pay cost of the complaint and this appeal which is quantified at Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant/respondent No. 1. The amount as above shall be payable within 2 months failing which the interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable thereon from the date of default. Appeal partly allowed.