These two revision petitions No.2979 of 2017 and 3238 of 2017 have been filed by complainant Dr. Ravi Agarwal and opposite parties Speed Post, Rajasthan University SO and anr. respectively against the order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.799 of 2016. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.09.2012, complainant Dr. Ravi Agarwal sent an application for the post of Asst. Prof. through Speed Post and last date for receipt of applications was 27.09.2012. On 28.09.2012 item was delivered (as per information supplied by the University). 3. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum Jaipur, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:- “So, the consumer complaint against the opponent has been accepted and an exemplary compensation of Rs.10 lakhs (ten lakh rupees in words) has been imposed on opponent for the service deficiency and unfair trade practices performed by the opponent. From the amount Rs.5 lakhs (five lakh rupees in words) will be given to the consumer for his mental pain, financial loss and embarrassment whereas the remaining Rs.5 lakhs (five lakh rupees in words) will be deposited in Rajasthan State Consumer Welfare Fund. The consumer is also entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand rupees in words) for complaint expenditure. Time of one month has been given to comply with the order.” 4. The opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission partially accepted the appeal and reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.50,000/-. 5. Hence the present revision petitions by both the parties. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, postal department stated that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 liability cannot be fastened on the postal department, Government of India for misplacement or late delivery of a postal article. The services offered by the postal department cannot be compared with any courier services as the postal department is offering these services even in the remote areas of the country where no private player would like to go. Learned counsel further argued that the complaint can be filed within a period of 30 days with the department as per letter dated 14.06.1990 issued by D.G.Posts to all Chief PMGs/PMGs of the country, wherein the following has been mentioned:- “(a) Enquiries regarding domestic Speed Post articles shall be accepted only within a period of ONE month from the date of booking of the article; (b) Documents relating to domestic Speed Post service shall be preserved for a period of THREE months from the date of booking of the article at the Speed Post centre and another THREE months in the office of the SSRM.” 8. It was argued by the learned counsel for the postal department that in the present case, the complaint was not filed within one month from the date of booking of the Speed Post and accordingly, the record was weeded out as per the instructions. Therefore, when the complaint was filed before the District Forum, the department did not have any record to reply to the complaint. 9. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the postal department that under Rule 66 (B) of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, there is already provision for refund of the amount paid to the postal department for booking of the Speed Post article and the same was refunded to the complainant which was not accepted by the complainant. The learned counsel further referred to the following cases in support of his arguments: “(1) The Presidency Post Master & Anr. Vs. Dr. U.Shanker Rao, II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC). (2) K. Neelambaran Vs. Post Master, Urkunnu & Ors., I (1991) CPJ 666. (3) RP No.535 of 2015, Indian Postal Department Head Post Office Head Post Office Korba Chhattisgarh Vs. Amitabh Srivastava, decided on 03.06.2015 (NC)” 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant stated that his application form did not reach the University in time due to negligence of the opposite parties and therefore, he was not called for the interview, whereas the candidates with lower marks than the complainant were invited. Had application been received by the University in time, the complainant had a very high chance of getting selected as Lecturer in the University. Thus, the complainant has suffered an irreparable loss due to late delivery of the application sent by the complainant through speed post. The District Forum had rightly awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant and Rs.5 lakhs to be deposited with consumer welfare fund looking at the irreparable loss suffered by the complainant. The State Commission on the other hand, has reduced the compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- only, which is not even the one month’s salary of a Lecturer of the University. Learned counsel first of all argued that even after receiving the complaint the postal department was not serious and did not try to preserve the Speed Post record. The speed post was booked on 21.09.2012 and the last date for the application to reach was 27.09.2012. The Speed Post was delivered on 28.09.2012 and therefore, the application of the complainant was not considered by the University. The complainant contended that the University vide its letter dated 18.03.2013 informed the complainant that he was not called for interview as his application was received late in the University. Accordingly, the complainant filed a complaint with the postal department being No.1000053-31487 on 21.3.2013. The status of the complaint was shown as closed on 22.3.2013. It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that when the complaint was registered on 21.03.2013, the records were not weeded out at that time as per Rule quoted by the learned counsel for the postal department. The record was to be kept for six months from the date of booking and as the booking was made on 21.09.2012, the record should have been preserved till 21.3.2013. This clearly shows that the department did not try to look into the complaint and straightaway closed complaint on the next date. In a communication written by Deputy Manager SPC Baria House, Jaipur addressed to SSRM RMS, J-P Division, Jaipur, it is clearly mentioned that the record of Speed Posts have been weeded out on 03.05.2013 for the period 01.7.2012 to 30.09.2012. From this letter, it was argued by the learned counsel that the record was with the postal department till 3.5.2013, whereas the complaint was filed on 21.3.2013. Had the postal department taken interest in resolution of the complaint, they should have enquired into the matter with the help of available record. Thus, it is clear that the record were not weeded out at the time when the complaint was received by the postal department and that the postal department did not take any initiative to look into the complaint. Clearly, the postal department has been deficient in its services in two ways- first in non-delivery of the postal article in time and secondly in not enquiring into the complaint even though the records were available. 11. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the State Commission has drastically reduced compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- for the complainant without any justification. It was argued that the State Commission has also found the postal department deficient in service and therefore, the compensation awarded by the District Forum should have been maintained. 12. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and have examined the material on record. From the records, it is clear that the complaint was filed with postal department on 21.03.2013 and it was closed on 20.03.2013 without any enquiry in the matter. It is also clear that the concerned record was weeded out on 03.05.2013 and had the postal department wanted to enquire into the matter, the same could have been done. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 lays down the following:- “6.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 wilful act or default.” 13. From the above, it is clear that this Section will not give immunity to the department or the employee if an employee is found delinquent in his duty if an inquiry is done, whereas in the present case, the department has not conducted any inquiry though it was possible to conduct such an inquiry as the complaint was received when the records were not weeded out. In the letter of Director General of Posts dated 14.6.1990 a time of one month is given for any inquiry to be made about the details of the Speed Post. Here, it is to be noted that this letter prescribes time of 30 days only for enquires regarding speed post articles. Enquires may not always be complaints. In an enquiry, some information is to be provided by the department. However, a complaint may require inquiry on the part of the department and complaint cannot be termed as an enquiry. However, the same letter also provides for retention of record for six months. Perhaps it discloses the intention of the Government of India that a complaint may be filed within a period of six months when the record is available. Therefore, if the postal department is not inquiring into complaints received in respect of speed post after 30 days, perhaps the department is not performing its duty which is cast upon all the departments of Government of India to redress the public grievances in an effective manner. 14. Based on the above examination notwithstanding the executive instructions issued by the postal department, in the present case, the authorities of postal department have not considered the complaint filed by the complainant even though the record was available till that date. Thus, department has been deficient in not only delivering the postal article with delay against the period promised but also in not conducting the inquiry. Therefore, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not give immunity to the postal department in the present case as the department was not able to reach to any conclusion whether any employee was delinquent in his duty which could be treated as his wilful act or default. 15. Moreover, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 clearly states that the exemption provided under this Section is not applicable where the Central Government has undertaken such liability in express terms. In the scheme of speed post, the Central Government has undertaken the liability of delivery of the speed post article within a certain period of time and has also taken the liability of refund of the speed post charges if item is not delivered or misdelivered or there is delay in delivery. Hence, as per the provision contained in the Section itself, this Section does not seem to be applicable in the matters of deficiency in the delivery of speed post articles. 16. This Commission in RP No.468 of 2018, Post Office, Hissar (Through Superintendent of Post Offices) Vs. Shri Dilwan Singh, decided on 19.09.2018, (NC) has also observed the following:- “16. So far as the postal services are concerned, these services are also covered under the definition of services under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, as a bare reading of Section 2(o) will clarify which reads as under:- “ “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service; 17. From the above provision, it is very clear that the list of services in the Section is only illustrative and not exhaustive because the Section itself says that services of any description which are made available to potential users are covered and are not limited to the list given in the section. 18. So far as the question of compensation for delay in delivery of the Speed Post is concerned, once the complainant has been found to be a consumer and his eligibility to avail the relief under Consumer Protection Act is established, the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be fully applicable in the present case. Section 14 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:- “14. Finding of the District Forum- (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party:” 19. From the above provision, it is clear that the District Forum is competent to award compensation keeping in view loss and injury sustained by the complainant due to negligence of opposite party.” 17. In nut shell it can be said that the person who has sent the speed post is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he has paid the speed post charges for getting the services of the speed post delivery. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the remedies under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional remedy available to a consumer. As seen above, in the case of speed post, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not seem to be applicable, the remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Hence, as observed by this Commission in Post Office, Hissar (Through Superintendent of Post Offices) Vs. Shri Dilwan Singh, (supra), the District Forum and State Commission are empowered to award compensation to the complainant. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner opposite party has relied upon decision of this Commission in K.Neelambaran Vs. Post Master, Urkunnu & Ors. (supra) and The Presidency Post master & Anr. Vs. Dr. U.Shanker Rao, (supra). These judgments are of 1991 and 1993. Much water has flown since then and this Commission further in Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices Nit, Faridabad & Anr. Vs. Mahabir Prasad & Anr., RP No.2186 of 2013, decided on 04.7.2013, has held the following:- “We do not find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties because from the act and conduct of the opposite parties it is fully established that they were deficient and negligent in non-delivering of the postal article to the complainant. If nobody was available to receive the postal article the opposite parties were bound to send the same to its sender but they failed to perform their duty. In our view the act of the appellants-opposite parties for not delivering the speed post article at its proper destination, is willful act or default on the part of the officials of the appellants-opposite parties. It has to be kept in mind that in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the burden of proving deliberation about the delivery of the postal article was upon the opposite parties because after handing over the speed post envelope to the opposite party no.1 by the opposite party no.2, the opposite parties are the custodian of the same and by conducting an enquiry about the loss/missing of the postal article, the opposite parties could have submit their explanation but they failed to do so. It is evident on record that the appellants-opposite parties are deficient for the loss of speed post envelope which was containing cheque of Rs.51,030/-. Merely by stating that the liability of the opposite parties is limited to pay compensation as admissible under the rules for loss of article or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less, is not genuine excuse as the opposite parties have tried to absolve themselves from their liability by taking shelter of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1989 and the provisions of the Indian Post Office Rules 1933 and Rule 66B of the Post Office Act and as such the deficiency of service of the opposite parties in the instant case is not to be over sighted. In view of the above facts, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. Since, two Fora below have given detailed and reasoned orders which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Therefore, present petition is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).” 19. So far as the reliance of the petitioner on the decision of this Commission in K.Neelambaran Vs. Post Master, Urkunnu & Ors. (supra) and The Presidency Post master & Anr. Vs. Dr. U.Shanker Rao, (supra) is concerned, it is seen that the issue of speed post being covered under the liability undertaken by the Government of India was neither raised nor separately decided whereas, in the present case, this Commission has reached to a conclusion that speed post service is covered under the liability undertaken by the Government of India, and consequently, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is not applicable to the matter relating to deficiency of service in respect of speed post articles. Hence, after reaching at the aforesaid finding, it becomes difficult to place reliance on these cases. 20. So far as question of compensation is concerned, it is seen that the District Forum had granted exemplary compensation of Rs.10 lakhs though the complainant had demanded Rs.2,00,000/- only. The State Commission has awarded Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment as there was no guarantee that the complainant could have been selected. It is also told by the complainant that the advertisement was issued on 09.09.2012 and he applied on 21.09.2012, whereas last date was 27.09.2012. The complainant should have been more careful and should have sent his application giving more time for possible postal delays. However, the fact is that the opposite party postal department could not deliver the Speed Post within the time promised. Hence, the complainant is definitely entitled to compensation. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the compensation granted by the State Commission is reasonable and does not require any modification from this Commission. 21. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, both the revision petition Nos. 2979 of 2017 & 3238 of 2017 are dismissed. | 
