BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Appellant                 Mr Indradev Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondent              Mr Anand Prakash, Advocate

ORDER

1.          This first appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) challenges order in CC no. 22 of 2011 dated 09.03.2018 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna, (in short, ‘the State Commission’), dismissing the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.49,99,999/- for deficiency in service in respect of a Speed Post article booked on 27.05.2011 by the appellant which was delayed in delivery by the respondent.

2.     I have the learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully considered the material on record.

3.     The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant had booked a letter addressed to the Bihar State Staff Selection Commission, (in short, “the BSSSC”) Patna which is stated to have been an application for appointment to the post of a Secretarial Assistant along with four postal orders of Rs.50/- each, totalling to Rs.200/- at Hasua Post Office on 27.05.2011. The same was accepted by the respondent Post Office vide reference no. EF 107709225. The letter was booked by Speed Post but was delivered much latter than the assured period of time of three days. The appellant therefore contends that he was denied the opportunity of applying for the post under the BSSSC, Patna and therefore, had filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking compensation of Rs.49,99,999/- from the respondents. On consideration of this complaint, the State Commission held that the complaint was not maintainable under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, as per which the opposite parties and Post Offices enjoy immunity from any liability for loss, mis-delivery or delay in delivery of any postal article unless caused fraudulently or by a wilful act or default. It was held that as per the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Act and the Rules thereunder in case of delivery of Speed Post articles, the refund or compensation payable was double the composite Speed Post charges or Rs.1000/-, whichever is less. Therefore, the complainant was held to be not entitled to any relief for delay in delivery of the Speed Post article under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.  This order is impugned before us.

4.     According to the appellant, the letter had been handed over for Speed Post service to the Hasua Post Office on 27.05.2011 since the last date of receipt of the application by the BSSSC, Patna was 31.05.2011. As the nearest Speed Post office was at Nawada, even if the letter was forwarded to this post office for onward delivery by Speed Post the delay in delivery of the Speed Post beyond 31.05.2011 was alleged by the appellant to be a deficiency in service on part of the respondent and therefore, he had been denied the requisite service. Hence compensation of Rs.49,99,999/- had been claimed.

5.     According to the respondents, while it is not denied that a Speed Post article had been received at the Hasua Post Office for delivery to the BSSSC, Patna from the appellant herein, it was contended that the Hasua Post Pffice was not authorised for Speed Post articles to be booked. Therefore, it was forwarded to the post office at Nawada from where it was sent as a Speed Post article. It was contended that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, compensation was payable only if there was an establishment of loss, mis-delivery or delay in delivery due to fraud, or by wilful act or by default. Since none of these had been established by the appellants it was contended that the appellant was entitled to relief only under the existing Rules as per which he was only entitled to payment of double the composite Speed Post charges incurred on the despatch of the speed post article. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Commission in Yogesh Kumar vs Supdt., Indian Postal Department Faridabad in RP No. 3246 of 2016 dated 09.03.2023 and the judgment in Union India and Ors. vs R C Puri, RP no. 314 of 2003 dated 29.08.2005 to contend that the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898 provides for immunity to the Postal Department from liabilities by reasons of loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless the same is established to be on account of fraud or wilful default on the part of the Post Office.  This position has been upheld in various other similar cases wherein it had been held that the appellant was not entitled to the relief claimed.

6.     From a perusal of the record and the legal position under the Indian Postal Act, it is evident that the relief to which a person who uses the services of a Speed Post is entitled to have been specifically laid down in the Indian Postal Act, 1898 as well as in Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 as amended in 1986, Under Rule 66 B introduced with effect from 01.08.1986 specifically pertaining to speed post, it is specifically provided as under:

“In case of any delay of domestic Speed Post parcels beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts 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 articles or loss of its contents or damage to the content, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charge paid or Rs.1000/- whichever is less”.

7.     In view of the foregoing, and the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I do not find any reason that warrants interference in the order of the State Commission which is reasoned and based upon the legal position and Rules of the Department of Posts. The Appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to cost.    

8.     Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of by this order.