1. The above stated 28 Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in various First Appeals (FAs) in which various orders of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum II)/ District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum IV, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum IV) in Consumer Complaint  were challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the orders passed by State Commission and District Forum. Relevant details of these RPs, corresponding FAs and CCs are given in the Table at Annexure. 27 RPs out of 28 have been filed by the Postal Department (OPs before the District Forum-II), while the 1^st RP (RP/760/220) has been filed by the complainant before the District Forum-IV.

2. As the above stated 28 RPs have been filed against the similar orders of the State Commission, parties involved are the same, and issues for consideration/determination are related, these are being taken up together under this order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP 120 of 2021 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from RP 120/2021. For the sake of convenience, parties would also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent in all cases. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 22.08.2023 (Petitioners/OPs) and 22.08.2023 (Complainant/Respondent) respectively.

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

That M/s. Healing Crystals India (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) undertook the booking of a parcel intended for international dispatch to Great Britain. However, the parcel failed to reach its designated recipient, thereby leading the complainant to assert that this occurrence constitutes both an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in services on the part of the Petitioner/OPs (hereinafter referred to as the "OP"). In response to these allegations, the OPs contest the contentions made against them. OPs state that the complainant executed the parcel booking through a franchise outlet situated in Jaipur and assert that the regulations and protocols established by the Universal Postal Union, along with accords governing the distribution of foreign mail, are applicable to this scenario. The OPs maintain that the complainant omitted to declare the contents of the parcel, particularly that it encompassed a Lapis Lazuli Stone Tower Obelisk Reiki Spiritual Healing Gemstone Table Decor valued at 11.11 POUND. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II in Jaipur examined the facts presented and concurred with the complainant's submissions, concluding that indeed there was a deficiency in the service rendered by the Department of Post. Consequently, the forum issued an order mandating the OPs to provide pecuniary compensation to the complainant. This ruling was subsequently upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur, subsequent to an appeal. The OPs acknowledge that the monetary quantum in question is relatively insignificant. However, OPs initiated the present revision petition due to a recurrent pattern of complaints and appeals originating from the same complainant, alluding to issues concerning delayed or unsuccessful foreign parcel deliveries. The OPs underscore that the complainant's persistent pursuit of grievances, despite the comparatively minor financial implications involved, has compelled them to initiate the present revision petition.

5. Vide Order dated 08.01.2020, in the CC no. 826/2017 of the District Forum has accepted the complaint and directed OPs to pay jointly or severally to the complainant.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 08.01.2020 of District Forum, OP(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 11.11.2020 in FA No. 371/2020 has upheld the District Forum’s order and dismissed the appeal.

7. Petitioner(s)/OPs have challenged the said Order dated 08.01.2020 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The District Forum and the State Commission have egregiously faltered by neglecting the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, which unequivocally and explicitly governs the matter. The liability for compensation due to non-delivery does not arise under the general law, given the explicit provisions enshrined in Section 33, read in conjunction with Section 6. There exists no deficiency in services as per the definition provided in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The parcel in question was dispatched on 19.06.2017, promptly forwarded to the Delhi office of the OPs on the same day, and subsequently dispatched to Great Britain on the 20.06.2017. The parcel reached Great Britain on the 22.06.2017 and was duly received by the Foreign Exchange Office. However, in accordance with the Universal Postal Union Rules, the responsibility was declined due to the parcel falling within the category of items comprising precious materials. Furthermore, the complainant refrained from submitting any complaints within 6 months from the booking date. However, it was only on the 20.02.2018, during an inquiry, that the Foreign Mail Division in Delhi informed that the parcel indeed contained precious items, and subsequently, the office in Great Britain declined responsibility.

2. Both the District Forum and State Commission have regrettably failed to grasp the intricacies of the Indian Postal Department's membership in the Universal Postal Union and its adherence to the Union's regulations for sending and receiving mail from foreign nations. This process involves various agencies, such as customs and foreign exchange offices, operating under self-declarations from senders regarding prohibited items. In this context, the complainant dispatched prohibited items for business purposes. This is contrary to the stipulation outlined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, which excludes individuals availing services for commercial purposes from the ambit of 'consumers'.

3. That the parcel booking was executed at Franchise outlet No. FO-01-01 Jaipur, which falls under Shyam Nagar Post Office. The failure to include this Franchise outlet as a party invalidates the complaint. The contents of the parcel, namely a Lapis Lazuli Stone Tower Obelisk Reiki Spiritual Healing Gemstone Table Decor along with a Free Crystal Healing E-book, were prohibited as per Article 18.6.1 of the Universal Postal Union Rules. Given that the Universal Postal Union explicitly stated that it cannot confirm the delivery status of the contents and due to the contents being cash, cheques, bank drafts, money orders, platinum, gold, silver, semi-precious stones, jewels, or other valuable articles, the prohibited nature of the contents is evident.

4. The impugned order contradicts the stance established in the case of "Presidency Post Master General, Madras Versus U. Shankar Rao" and "Post Master, Imphal Versus Jamni Devi" wherein the National Commission highlighted that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, postal authorities are exempted from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay, or damages. The judgments rendered in Revision Petition No. 15/1997 titled "Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana & Ors Versus Vijay Rattan Aggarwal," Revision Petition No. 1006/2001 titled "Union of India & Ors Versus Brahm Dev Upadhyaya," Revision Petition No. 1035/2002 titled "Varun Garg Versus Assistant Post Master, Post Office & Ors," and Revision Petition No. 314/2003 titled "Union of India & Ors. Versus R C Puri" exemplifies District Forum’s and State Commission’s flawed approach.

8. Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

1. The counsel for Petitioners/OPs argues that OPs are members of the Universal Postal Union, facilitating the international exchange of mail under its established rules. According to these rules and the mail distribution treaty, individuals booking parcels must declare that the parcel does not contain any "PROHIBITED ITEM." Furthermore, as per the Universal Postal Union regulations and the mail distribution treaty, inquiry can be conducted within 6 months from the parcel's booking date. After this 6-month period, no inquiries are entertained, and the parcel's delivery is presumed. It is crucial to emphasize that the Universal Postal Union does not deliver parcels containing prohibited items, nor are these parcels returned. The Complainant directly filed a complaint before the District Forum after the lapse of the 6-month period. However, the complainant mentioned an incorrect booking date of 04.09.2017, whereas the actual booking date, as evidenced by the booking receipt, was 19.06.2017. The tracking report shows that the parcel reached Great Britain on 22.06.2017 and was received at the Foreign Exchange office. However, the office in Great Britain declined responsibility for the parcel due to its categorization as containing precious items. Despite the Complainant's failure to file a complaint within 6 months of booking, an inquiry by the Foreign Mail Division in Delhi confirmed that the parcel indeed contained precious items, as per the Universal Postal Union Rules.

2. The counsel further argues that the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 states that the government shall not be liable for loss, misdelivery, delay, or damage to any postal article during transmission, except in cases where liability is expressly undertaken by the Central Government. Officers of the Post Office are not liable unless they have caused such issues fraudulently or through willful acts or defaults. Counsel relied on various judgements, "Presidency Post Master General, Madras Versus U. Shankar Rao 11(1993) CPJ141(NC), In Revision Petition No. 986/1996 "Post Master, Imphal Versus Jamni Devi", In Revision Petition No. 15/1997 titled "Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana & Ors Versus Vijay Rattan Aggarwal", Revision Petition No. 1006/2001 titled “Union of India & Ors Versus Brahm Dey Upadhyaya'", Revision Petition No. 1035/2002 titled "Varun Garg Versus Assistant Post Master, Post Office & Ors and in Revision Petition No. 314/2003 titled as "Union of India & Ors. Versus R C Puri' wherein the principle was laid down that under the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the postal authorities are exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damages.

3. That under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Consumer Forum cannot award compensation beyond what is provided under Rule 66-B of the Indian Post Office Rules 1933. The District Forum is not justified in granting compensation beyond awarding the total amount of composite Speed Post Charges in certain cases. Both the District Forum and State Commission incorrectly interpreted the Citizen Charter in relation to the delivery norms mentioned therein. The Citizen Charter's delivery norms only apply to articles booked under the EMS (Express Mail Service) category, such as Speed Post. They are not applicable to parcels booked under the Registered Parcel category for foreign countries. The complainant firm, M/s Healing Crystals India, is engaged in selling products on the Amazon seller platform. It's important to note that only firms that have signed a business solution agreement with Amazon are allowed to sell their products on the Amazon Seller platform, and they are required to pay referral fees to Amazon for each sale. Therefore, the business model in this case operates on a business-to-business basis. The complainant firm purchases products from manufacturers and sells them through the Amazon platform, utilizing OPs as couriers. The business conducted by M/s Healing Crystals India is best classified as business-to-business, and the firm cannot be treated as a consumer under section 2(1)(d)(i) or section 2(1)(d)(ii) after the 1993 ordinance/amendment Act or the 2002 Amendment Act. The counsel relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court case titled Shrikant G. Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank (2022) 5 SCC 42.

4. That there have been instances where articles were delivered to their destinations, yet the complainant made false and baseless complaints before the District Forum with the intent to gain unlawfully and harass the OPs. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that the complainant withdrew a total of 43 complaints after the OPs responded to them before the District Forum, indicating that the articles had been either delivered to the addressee or returned to the sender/complainant. This action by the complainant strongly suggests that these complaints were filed willfully and deliberately with the intent to gain unlawfully and harass the OPs.

5. The counsel for complainant/respondent argues that the complainant's position emphasizes that he was not previously regular user of foreign post office services.  That it's the responsibility of postal service providers to clearly communicate UPU conditions to consumers, either through visible displays in post offices or on the internet. The presence of conflicting information, such as the one-year limit in the Post Office Guide Part I, adds to the confusion. The complainant is a consumer of postal services, and the postal service providers have a contractual obligation to ensure safe and timely delivery. If there's a deficiency in service such as mis-sent parcels, delayed deliveries, or non-deliveries, the postal service providers could be held liable for their shortcomings.

6. The National Commission's decisions in cases like Post Office, Hissar vs. Dilwan Singh and Post Master, Post Office vs. Ripan Kumar have not accepted the defense under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clarifies that it adds to, rather than replaces, other existing laws. However, it's worth noting that the Indian Post Office Act's provisions don't apply beyond India's territorial limits, except to Indian citizens abroad. In cases where registered international articles are sent to recipients outside India, the application of the Indian Post Office Act becomes questionable. Ultimately, when postal service providers fail to deliver registered foreign articles within the promised time and in a safe condition, it constitutes a deficiency in service. Whether it's mis-sent parcels, damaged goods, delays, non-deliveries, or other issues, these could be seen as deficiencies in service, especially if they result from willful actions or negligence. "Willful" implies intentional, deliberate, and not excusable by compulsion, ignorance, or accident.

7. The complainant, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, operates a Sole Proprietorship firm named M/s Healing Crystals India, which is his means of livelihood and self-employment. The District Forum and State Commission have both considered him a consumer. The basis for this classification is that self-employment for earning a livelihood does not necessarily qualify as a "commercial purpose", and relies on various cases like National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsolia Motors and Others and M/s Paramount Digital Colour Lab & Ors. vs. Paramount Digital Colour Lab & Ors. The Government of India's Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts (IR & GB Division) issued an Office Memorandum (CF-71/29/2021-CF-DOP) that outlines a revised compensation policy for international articles (Registered, Parcels, EMS, and ITPS). This memorandum states the compensation limits for loss, theft, or damage to international registered articles based on their value or 30 SDR (Special Drawing Rights), whichever is lower, along with postage paid.

8. The counsel further argues that many appeals filed by the OPs before the State Commission and several revision petitions submitted to the National Commission are time-barred due to excessive delays. A ruling by the NCDRC in the case of Estate Officer, I.T. Chandigarh & Ors. vs. Lt. Col. Raghbir Singh (RP No. 2653/2002) emphasizes that delays without sufficient cause should not be condoned. This might impact the outcome of some of the petitions under consideration. The Supreme Court of India in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Smt. Khazani & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 6261 of 2012, stressed the importance of accepting decisions made by lower forums rather than prolonging litigation. The Court stated that taking such matters to higher courts should be discouraged, especially if they involve poor individuals or small-scale cases. Regarding the OPs' aggregation of matters, it's noted that each case represents a distinct contract for specific destinations, different dates, varying quantities of articles, and different recipients in various countries.

9. The counsel for complainant relies on various judgements; In Sr Supdt, of Post Offices, GPO Building, Chandigarh and others vs. Sharanjit Singh Bahm, Joint Registrar, Chandigarh (RP No. 2693 of 2006) highlighted that the postal department's actions, such as sending a postal article to the wrong destination, cannot always be construed as inadvertent and could be considered a willful act and default of the postal department. In Post Master, Post Office Vs. Ripan Kumar RP 2508 of 2016, NCDRC observed that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act doesn't provide immunity to postal authorities for negligence, remissness, or inaction in discharging their duties. Failure to deliver a speed post article to its addressee constitutes a willful act of deficiency in service. This ruling emphasizes that officials of the Postal Department are not immune to accountability within the Department or before a court/tribunal.

9. In 14 cases out of 28 under consideration in this order, RPs were filed within the limitation period, while in remaining 14 cases there was delay ranging from 1 to 91 days, as detailed in the enclosed ‘Annexure’. Requisite applications for condonation of delay have been filed in these cases. After considering the reasons for delay/grounds for condonation stated in the delay condonation application, and keeping in view the fact that all RPs involve common questions of law, the delay condonation applications are allowed and all RPs are taken up on merits.

10. Petitioners admit that though the amount involved in each case is very small/ a petty amount and keeping in view the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani & Anr. IV (2012) CPJ 5 SCC, the present petitions would not have been preferred by the petitioners, however considering the prevailing law/rules and the fact that a large number of complaints/appeals of similar nature have been filed by the complainant (respondent herein) for late/non delivery of foreign parcels, the petitioners are constrained to file the present RPs.

11. The petitioners have raised following questions of law for consideration by the Commission in the RPs:

1. Whether Section 6 of Indian post Office Act, 1898 provides for immunity to the Government, i.e. Postal Department, from any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post?

2. Whether a complaint of a person, involved in business to business commercial activities by signing a business solution agreement with like M/s Amazon Sellers, is maintainable under the Consumer protection Act?

3. Whether the universal Postal Union Rules are mandatory to be followed by the person booking the parcel sent through India Post when the India Post is a member of the Universal Postal Union to send & receive the foreign mail?  

12. As regards legal issue that the complainant (respondent herein) is not a consumer, the petitioners have relied upon following judgements of NCDRC/ Hon’ble Supreme Court, relevant extract of which is given below.

1. M/s Paramount Digital Colour Lab & Ors. vs. AGFA India Pvt. Ltd., Supreme Court, 5 (2018) 14 SCC 81

“11. ……..…If a person purchases the goods for a “commercial purpose” and not for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of “self-employment”, such purchaser will not come within the definition of “consumer”. It is therefore clear, that despite “commercial activity”, whether a person would fall within the definition of “consumer” or not would be a question of fact in every case. Such question of fact ought to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. …………”

2. Shrikant G. Mantri vs. Punjab National Bank, Supreme Court (2022) 5 SCC 42

“19.1. The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, “commercial purpose” is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business to business transactions between commercial entities.

19.2. The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit−generating activity.”

13. On the other hand, respondent/complainant has relied upon following judgements of this Commission/Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his case/contention that he is a consumer

1. Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute, Supreme Court 1995 SCC (3) 583

“24. ……..A person who buys goods and use them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment is within the definition of the expression "consumer".”

2. M/S. Paramount Digital Color Lab . vs M/S. Agfa India Pvt. Ltd., Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.. 2109-2110 OF 2018 (15.02.2018)

“11. ……..“Self-employment” necessarily includes earning for self. Without earning generally there cannot be “self-employment”. Thus, if a person buys and uses the machine exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of “self-employment”, he definitely comes within the definition of “consumer”…………..”

3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Harsolia Motors, Supreme Court 2023 SCC OnLine SC 409, court relied on the previous judgement Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute (Supra)

14.  It is contended by the petitioners that State Commission/District Forum failed to consider the provisions of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, which are reproduced below:

Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, 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 willful act or default.

15. Petitioners contend that State Commission/District Forum failed to consider various judgements passed by this Commission, wherein principle was laid down that under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, postal authorities are exempted from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damages. Some of the judgements relied upon by the petitioners in this regard and relevant extract of the same are reproduced below.

1. Presidency Post Master General, Madras Versus U. Shankar Rao, NCDRC RP/175/1992 (15.04.1993)

     “11. ………The services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. Establishing the Post Offices and running the postal service the Central Government performs a governmental function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for the article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges imposed by the State for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier.”

2. Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs Vijay Rattan Aggarwal, NCDRC RP/15/1997 along with Union of India & Ors. vs. Brahm Dev Upadhyaya, NCDRC RP/1006/2001 and Varun Garg vs. Assistant Post Master, Post Office & Ors. NCDRC RP/1035/2002 decided on 18.09.2002.

    “……….A Consumer Forum is even bound by the terms of the contract howsoever oppressive these may be unless those terms are against public policy, illegal or void. We, therefore, do not find justification in the Revision Petition No.15/1997 and Revision Petition No.1006/2001 for the District Forum to grant any compensation except to award the total amount of composite Speed Post charges in each of these two cases and for the State Commission to affirm the same……”

3. Indian Postal Department, Head Office vs. Amitabh Srivastava, NCDRC RP 535/2015 (03.06.2015), court relied on the previous judgement of Presidency Post Master General, Madras Versus U. Shankar Rao (Supra)

4. Yogesh Kumar vs. Superintendent, Indian Postal Department, NCDRC RP/3246/2016 (09.03.2023)

15. The same view has been taken by this Commission in Union of India & Ors. Vs. M.L. Bora - 2010 SCC OnLine NCDRC 290, relied upon by the State Commission, and Chief Postmaster General & Anr. Vs. Babu Lal Saini - 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 484.”

5. Debananda Dora vs. Union of India, Orissa High Court (AIR) 1965 Orissa 118 (16.11.1964)

     “12. It is true that by the express provisions contained in Section 33 of the Post Offices Act the post office is bound to pay compensation not exceeding the amount for which the postal article has been insured, to the sender thereof for the loss of the postal article or its contents or for damage caused to it in the course of its transmission by post. But this liability does not arise by virtue of the general law of contract but by virtue of the express provision contained in that section read with S. 6 of the Act.”

16. On the other hand, Respondents have relied upon following judgements of this Commission/Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his contention that Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is not applicable in this case.

1. Post Master General, Kerala & Ors. vs. Kiron Rasheed, NCDRC RP/781/2010 (31.03.2011)

“3. …………that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the RP/OP incurs no liability for loss, mis-delivery or damage/delay in delivery, except when caused fraudulently or willfully. This ground was raised before, and examined in sufficient detail, in the impugned order. The State Commission has very rightly observed that this provision is not in any way connected with the modernized forms of transactions like speed post, e-mail, money transfer etc.”

2. Post Office, Hisar vs. Dilwan Singh, NCDRC RP/468/2018 (19.09.2018)

“11. ……..The Indian Post Office Act is of 1898 and lot of water has flown since then. The modes of communication have changed from post card, and envelopes to recorded delivery, registered post, Speed Post, E-mails and other digital modes. Similarly, more and more laws are being enacted to infuse more element of accountability in the provision of public services………….In this scenario, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 has lost its relevance and credibility in the present times. Strong case is made out for amending the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 in the light of the advancements made in the field of communications and in the field of accountability in the public system.”

3. Post Master, Post Office vs. Ripan Kumar, NCDRC RP/2508/2016 (10.01.2020)

    "9. ………Section 6 not providing a 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 constituted a willful act of deficiency in service on their part”…..…...”

     21. Section 6 does not intend to provide an unfettered licence to the officials of the Postal Department for inefficiency and mismanagement or to cause loss and injury to its 'consumer'(s)………..”

17. Regarding third legal issue flagged by the petitioners viz. applicability of UPU Rules, the petitioners have contended that the petitioners, as members of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) are engaged in sending and receiving international mail, adhering to UPU rules. These rules necessitate a declaration from senders affirming that parcels contain no prohibited items. Additionally, accessing the online parcel tracking system incurs a Rs. 20 fee and must occur within 6 months of parcel booking; after this period, no inquiries are accepted, and delivery is assumed. The UPU doesn't handle parcels with prohibited items. The respondent filed a complaint with the District Forum after 6 months, incorrectly citing the booking date as 04.09.2017 instead of the actual date, 19.06.2017, as per the booking receipt. The UPU's foreign article regulations, available since 2008-2009, clearly state that no inquiries are accepted after 180 days from posting.

18. As some of the appeals before State Commission arose from CCs filed before different District Forums of Rajasthan State, the petitioners also contend that DCDRF II failed to consider the orders passed by the coordinate bench of the District Consumer Forum IV, Jaipur wherein the similar claim of the respondent has been rejected vide orders dated 09.09.2019 in complaint No.s 186/2017, 187/2017 & 189/2017 respectively. That appeals filed by complainant in some of these cases were dismissed by State Commission, not only that, State Commission Rajasthan has allowed some of the appeals filed by the petitioners herein, while another coordinate bench of State Commission Rajasthan has dismissed some appeals filed by the petitioners herein against the same respondent involving similar facts. Hence, it is obvious that different District Forums of Rajasthan State as well as State Commission Rajasthan has taken different views in similar facts and circumstances of different cases pertaining to same parties. Hence the need for consideration by National Commission.

19. The petitioners also contend that DRDF and SCDRC, Jaipur have wrongly interpreted the Citizen Charter about the delivery norm mentioned in the Citizen Charter in the present case as the above stated Citizen Charter is only applicable for articles booked under EMS category i.e Speed post category only. The Citizen Charter delivery norms are not applicable for the parcels booked as Registered parcel as no time period is prescribed in Citizen Charter for the articles booked under registered category for foreign countries.

20. Petitioner also contends that a large number of complaints were withdrawn by complainant after the petitioners herein filed the reply before the DCDRF stating that the articles have been delivered either to addressee or returned back to the sender/complainant. This act of the complainant shows that these complaints filed by the complainant wilfully and deliberately with intention to illegally gain and to harass the petitioners herein. Similarly, there are many cases where the articles were received back by the complainant at Jaipur, but the complainant made false and frivolous complaints before the DCDRF with intention to illegally gain and to harass the petitioners herein. The DCDRF passed the award in favour of complainant, bur after going through the records the SCDRC allowed the First Appeal.

21. On the other issue, the respondent has contended that there is a lack of prominently displayed information regarding the 6-month time limit set by the Universal Postal Union (UPU) for inquiries regarding the delivery of foreign registered parcels. Consequently, undisclosed and concealed conditions cannot be enforced upon consumers. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986, specifically Section 24-A, grants consumers the right to file a consumer complaint with any consumer forum within 2 years from the date when the cause of action arises. This Act holds precedence over any rules, regulations, guidelines, or instructions. In numerous cases, recipients have sent emails to the sender, informing them that the article has not been received. These emails have been submitted as evidence before the District Forum and have been considered in the proceedings. That there is no POD (proof of delivery) submitted which should be automatically considered as evidence of non-delivery of the article. Contrary to the UPU's 6-month condition for inquiries, the Government of India's Post Office Guide Part II, titled "Enquires and Complaints," states that complaints and inquiries regarding articles of letter mail and parcel mail in the foreign post must be submitted within one year from the day following the date of posting. Furthermore, petitioners should rectify their online Post Office Guide Part II, which still states a one-year inquiry period for foreign parcels. Moreover, they should amend the UPU treaty in accordance with Section 24A of the CP Act 1986, which establishes a 2-year time limit for filing consumer complaints from the date of the cause of action. The respondent was not informed by the petitioners at the time of booking about the 6-month inquiry period. Concealed and uncommunicated conditions are not legally binding on consumers.

22. In all these cases there are concurrent findings of both the fora below viz State Commission & District Forum that-  

1. Complainant is a consumer under section Section 7(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. There was a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

23.         We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant case records, various case laws relied upon by the parties and rival contentions of the parties.  As regards contention of the Petitioner that complainant is not a consumer, both the Fora below have given a concurrent finding that complainant is a consumer.  The complainant has contended that M/s Healing Crystals India is sole proprietorship firm, whose proprietor is Mr. Abhishek Sharma, who is an unemployed Postgraduate, B.Tech and M.B.A., who is running this firm for his livelihood and for self-employment in proprietorship.  He has further argued that the Petitioner herein received postal charges and gave assurance to deliver the foreign registered parcel to its recipient in a safe condition, within proper time, hence it is also contractual liability of the Petitioner, as they ae the service provider of the postal services.  After considering all the aspects and case laws on the subject, we agree with the concurrent findings of the fora below that complainant is a consumer. 

24.         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 cited above, 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 (Supra), 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/mis-delivery/loss/damage etc.  However, as the Petitioner have contended that in some cases the articles had been duly delivered to the addressee while in some cases they have been duly returned to the complainant/sender, in such cases, subject to petitioner giving a proof of delivery, duly attested by competent authority of the petitioner, the petitioner will not be liable for deficiency of service.

25.         As regards applicability of Universal Postal Union (UPU) Rules, no doubt Postal Department being a Member/Signatory in such International Understandings/Agreements, such Rules will govern the international postal deliveries/communications, but it is the bounden duty of the Postal Department to ensure that such instructions are duly notified and publicized for the benefit of its customers so that they are fully aware of such Rules/Guidelines for international parcels/deliveries.  We tend to agree with the contentions of the complainant in the case that if Consumer Protection Act gives them a two year limitation window for filing complaint from the date of cause of action, the six months window for lodging complaints/making inquiries under UPU Rules cannot over-write the express provisions of the Indian Legislation viz Consumer Protection Act with respect to limitation period.  Further, the Petitioner has not been able to clarify/explain the contradictory provisions in their Online Post Office Guide, which states one year inquiry period for foreign parcels. With respect to Petitioner’s contentions that the complainant despatched prohibited items on account of which the UPU/Great Britain Office declined responsibility, it is to be noted that at the time of booking such articles for foreign delivery, the customer is obligated to fill up a custom declaration form, where he is required to declare detailed description of the contents, its quantity, weight, value etc. (Custom Form CN 23). In the instant case the complainant has duly declared the description of the item in this form.  If in any case the complainant has either not filled the form or filled with incomplete information or not given the exact description of the items, the Postal Authorities at the first instance itself i.e. at the time of booking, should have/ought to have declined such booking of the articles.  If the given description of the articles as per this form fell into the category of prohibited items, which the Postal Department is supposed to be aware as to what are such prohibited items, the Postal Authorities should have/ought to have declined to accept such articles/packages for foreign delivery.  Having accepted any article for foreign delivery along with custom declaration form, complete in all respects, and completion of requisite terms and conditions and procedural modalities for booking of such articles, later on, Postal Department cannot run away from their responsibility for timely delivery of such articles or returning the same to the sender in case of non-delivery of such articles for any reason, or to compensate the complainants for any loss/damage/mis-delivery etc.  Hence, except in cases where the Postal Department has actually delivered the items to the addressee or returned the same to the sender, for which there should be a valid proof of delivery to the addressee/sender, in other cases they are liable to compensate the complainant for loss/damage/mis-delivery etc. 

26.         In view of the foregoing, we modify the orders of the State Commission/District Forum in various cases covered under this order, as follows:-

(i) If in any of the 28 cases covered under this order, the Postal Department/Petitioner claims that the articles in question have indeed been delivered to the addressee or have been returned back to the sender (complainant), they shall, within two months of date of this order, supply a copy of the proof of delivery to the addressee or sender, as the case may be, duly attested by a competent authority of the Petitioner, failing which, it will be presumed that such items have been lost/damaged/mis-sent etc. and accordingly the Petitioner shall be liable to compensate the complainants for such items.  The compensation etc. in such eventuality shall be payable as detailed in para 26 (ii) below.

(ii) For those cases where the items have been lost or damaged or mis-sent or status not known due to UPU/foreign authorities not responding, or there is any other unspecified reason for non-delivery to addressee or sender, the Petitioner Postal Department shall be liable to :-

1. Return the full value of the items (converted to Indian rupees), as declared in the custom declaration form, along with postal charges taken from the complainant.

2. Compensation equal to three times the value of the items as declared in the custom declaration form.

3. Litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- (in each case).

All payments in this order to be made within three months, failing which, it will entail interest @9% p.a.

27.         All the Revision Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 

28.  All the pending IAs, if any, in all the Revision Petitions also stand disposed of.