1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 09.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.1375/2017 in which order dated 06.10.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 337/2016 was challenged, inter alia praying for quashing/setting aside the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the State Commission in 1375/2017 and order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the District Forum in CC/337/2016.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA/1375/2017 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner were OPs and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in the CC 337 of 2016. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 03.06.2019.  The Petitioners filed their Arguments/Synopsis on 06.06.2021.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that:-

1. the complainant booked a speed post in a sealed envelope which contained the application for renewal of the electrical licence along with original licence and renewal fees of Rs.30/- vide Speed Post No. ER 24749574EN dated 21.12.2015 through G.P.O. Dholpur to Senior Electrical Inspector F-101 Panchsheel Marg, Bagadia Bhawan C Scheme Jaipur, and one affidavit.  As per the Complainant, the last date of renewal of the licence was 31.12.2015, however, the same was sent on 21.12.2015 only.

2. The speed post article was not received by the addressee, the complainant after a lapse of almost three months, on 30.03.2016 submitted an application to the Superintendent Post Offices, Dholpur  in regard to the non-delivery of the article, however, as per Rule-14 of chapter vi of compendium processing of public complaint, the complaint regarding the non-delivery of the speed post article was to be made within one month.

3. Despite the delay, an investigation was carried out by the Superintendent of Post Office and  a detailed report was handed over to the complainant on 03.08.2016.  Thereafter, as the article was not traceable, the Department of Post vide its letter dated 17.01.2017 directed the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dholpur to pay the Respondent an amount of Rs.80/- on account of Ex-gratia compensation in lieu of the Dholpur HO SPA No. ER247449574IN dated 21.12.2015.   In the meantime the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint No. 337/2016 before the District Forum, Dholpur. 

4.       Vide Order dated 06.07.2017, in the CC No. 337/2016 the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to deliver the post after making necessary investigation along with all the expenses to the complaint.  If the speed post along with documents is not delivered to the complainant within the stipulated period then the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the Respondents.  The complainant is also to receive Rs.5,000/- for the mental harassment and cost of the complaint. 

5.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated 06.07.2017 of District Forum,  the OPs/Post Office appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 09.01.2019 in FA No. 1375/2017 dismissed the Appeal. 

6.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 06.07.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:-

(i)      the State Commission while passing the impugned order has erred in law and has mis-appreciated the facts of the case as well as submissions of the Petitioner.

(ii)     the order passed by the State Commission is non-speaking order and is liable to be dismissed.

(iii)    the State Commission and District Forum while allowing the Complaint erred in hold deficiency of service on  the part of the Department of Post.  Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, clearly stipulates that the Government i.e. the Department of Posts shall not incur any liability by reasons 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.  The State Commission failed to appreciate that the loss of the Speed Post article was neither done fraudulently nor was a willful act on behalf of the officer of the Post Office. 

(iv)    State Commission failed to appreciate that the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, vide its notification No. GSR 40 ( E) dated 21.01.1999, had specified that the only liability that the Department of Posts incurs in the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less.   The State Commission while upholding the order passed by the District Forum has gone beyond the powers that have been bestowed under the Consumer Protection Act.  The District Forum while granting Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation failed to appreciate that there is a limit of amount of compensation to be paid which is Rs.1,000/-.  Neither the State Commission nor the District Forum can go beyond the statutory provisions of the Act and grant compensation more than that what is statutorily fixed.  The State Commission failed to acknowledge that the Department of Post vide memo No. PG2/178/16-17 had sanctioned an amount of Rs.80/- as compensation to the Complainant, which is the amount payable as per the notification No. GSR 40 ( E) dated 21.01.1999.

 (v)    Both the Fora below failed to appreciate that as the article was not received by the Addressee, the complainant as per Rule -14 of chapter VI of compendium processing of public complaint, ought to have made a complaint within 1 month from the date of booking.  However, in the present case, the complainant after a lapse of almost three months i.e. on 30.03.2016, submitted an application to the Superintendent Post Offices, Dholpur in regard to the non-delivery of the article.  The Petitioner has relied upon various judgments in support of his contentions.

7.       None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner on 03.08.2023.  On 12.07.2023 also none appeared for the Petitioner. However, it was clearly mentioned in the order dated 12.07.2023 that last opportunity is given to Petitioner to enter appearance, failing which, case shall be decided on merits on the next date i.e. on 03.08.2023.  A letter dated 30.09.2020 was received from the son and wife of the Respondent informing that the Respondent expired on 22.02.2020 due to cancer (death certificate also attached).  It was also informed that Prakash Singh S/o Sh. Mahender Singh and Smt.Maya Devi W/o Sh. Mahender Singh are the legal heirs of Sh. Mahender Singh.  It was requested that their case be decided on the basis of orders of the Fora below.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments filed by the Petitioner, are summed up below.

7.1     the Petitioner in addition to repeating what has been stated under the grounds, has contended in its written arguments that the complainant booked the speed post with the office of the Petitioner, since Petitioner’s office is only an administrative office and hence there is no relation of trader and consumer between the revisionist and the respondent.   The respondent/complainant should not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong, especially in view of the mandatory Rule-13 of Energy Department notification 31.05.2016 issued by Govt. of Rajasthan as per which the application for renewal of licence must have been made one month prior to the date of expiry, whereas the respondent/complainant sent the speed post alongwith alleged application for renewal of licence on 21.12.2015 and the date of expiry of licence was 31.12.2015, i.e. only 10 days prior to date of expiry.   The complainant has misled the court and abused/misused the process of law since the beginning for wrongful gain in the form of compensation by filing false complaint, which is clear from the fact that he has not filed with his complaint, firstly- any proof/document that he was electrical supervisor, secondly- any copy of licence previously issued in his name, thirdly – any proof of alleged payment of renewal licence-fee paid in the form of postal order and fourth- the copy of the alleged application for renewal of license  and as such the complainant has concealed the important information/documents from the Court/Forum/Commission.  In the absence of the above, the damage or compensation could not have been decided. 

7.2     The Petitioner has contended in his written submissions that in terms of Section 6 of the India Post Office Act 1898, the Department of Posts cannot be held liable for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article, except to the extent the liability is undertaken in express terms by the Central Government and unless any officer has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default  that in view of the gazette notification No. GSR 40(E) dated 21.01.1999, the only liability that the Department of Posts incurs 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 and as per the provision the ex-gratia compensation of Rs.80 was granted to the respondent/complainant by letter dated 13.01.2017 and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the revisionist.  Further it is submitted that since there is no allegation of any fraudulent or wilful act or default on the part of the revisionist, hence as per Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act as well as the following the cases titled as The Post Master, Imphal & Others Vs. Jamini Devi Sagolband (2002) 1 CPJ 28 (NC), Union of India Vs. M.L. Bora, 2010 SCC OnLIne NCDRC 290 [2010] NCDRC 289: (2011) 2 CPJ 9 and Presidency Post Master Vs. Dr. U. Shanker Rao II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC), there is neither any liability nor any deficiency of service on the part of the revisionist and as such the impugned order of State Commission and that of District Forum are liable to be set aside.

8.       As regards contentions of the Petitioner with regard to applicability of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, after going through the various case laws, especially the earlier decisions of this Commission, we are of the view that no doubt these provisions are applicable and grant some sort of immunity to the Postal Department and its employees, we are of the view that, as was held by this Commission earlier in Post Master, Post Office Vs. Ripan Kumar, RP 2508 of 2016- decided on 10.01.2020, section 6 does not intend to provide an unfettered licence to the officials of the Post Offices for inefficiency and mismanagement and to cause loss and injury to its consumers.  It was held by this Commission in this case that Section 6 is not providing windscreen to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc. on their part in discharge of their official duties  - not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constitute a wilful act of deficiency of service on their part. Hence, if the complainant has complied with all the conditions and procedural formalities for booking of the articles in question but the Postal Department, without any valid reason, has failed to deliver the said articles to the addressee or return the same to the sender i.e. the complainant within a reasonable period, they are liable for the deficiency in service.  Hence, we agree with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below on the count of deficiency of service on the part of Petitioner herein as they have not been able to give valid reason for non-delivery.

9.       For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties in their written submissions, we uphold the order of the State Commission, with some modification to the quantum of compensation ordered by District Forum, as the same is found to be excessive.  We reduce the compensation amount to Rs.10,000/-.  Rest of the order of the District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission, is maintained.  As the Respondent/complainant is no more, the relief granted by the District Forum, as modified above, shall be payable to the Legal Heirs of the deceased, within two months.  The RP is disposed off, accordingly.

10.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.