By Justice Asok Potsangbam.

          Heard Mr. S. Samarjit Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and also heard Mr. H. Dijen Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

[2]      This appeal is against the order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the District Forum, Imphal, in Complaint Case No. 24 of 2009 by which the Appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the Respondent. Aggrieved by this order, the appeal was preferred by the Appellant.

[3]      It is noticed from the records that the Complaint Case No. 24 of 2009 was filed before the District Forum by the Appellant alleging deficiency of service against the Appellant. The Complaint Petition discloses that a Speed Post containing Passport of the Respondent was sent through the Post Office in Gauhati on 08.4.2009 and the same was delivered to the Respondent on 25.4.2009. According to the Respondent, he missed to attend a programme in Bangkok from 20.4.2009 to 23.4.2009 due to late delivery of the Speed Post and the late delivery amounted to deficiency of service and as such, he claimed due compensation.

[4]      The written version filed by the Appellant No. 1 in which the Appellant has contended that the Speed Post containing the Passport was sent from Gauhati Post Office on 08.4.2009 but it was wrongly sent to Aizawl Post Office on 9.4.2009. Thereafter, on redirection, the Speed Post was received by the Imphal Post Office and immediately thereafter, the speed post was delivered to the Respondent. If, at all any responsibility is to be fixed against the erring Post Office, it is the Gauhati Post Office which had wrongly sent the speed post to Aizawl, instead of sending it to Imphal.

[5]      We have checked the case records received from the District Forum and we have found that notice to the Gauhati Post Office was sent through the Post Master, Imphal Head Office whereas such notice ought to have been sent directly to the Postal Authority of Gauhati, Assam, in as much as Post Master General of Assam is an office independent of Post Master General of Manipur. Therefore, we are not very sure as to whether the notice had been duly served to the Postal Authority of Gauhati, more so, when there is no reflection in the order sheet of the District Forum about the return of service from the Gauhati Post Office. Be that as it may, the appeal is filed by the authority of the Imphal Post Office but in the cause title, both the postal authorities of Imphal and Gauhati are shown as Appellants. Therefore, we may presume that the Postal Authority of Gauhati is duly represented.

[6]      Mr. S. Samarjit Singh has argued that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, no liability can be fastened upon the Postal Authority on account of misdelivery, loss, delay in delivery of postal articles, etc. Section 6 is quoted below:

“6. Exemption from liability of 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.”

[7]      Mr. S. Samarjit Singh has also submitted that a Full Bench of the National Commission had already held in the following case that Postal Authority/can have no liability due to loss/mis-delivery/delayed delivery,

“Revision Petition No. 15 of 1997 (Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Road Kurukshetra, Haryana & Ors. –vs-Vijay Rattan Aggarwal & Ors.).

[8]      Though the Commission fully share the grievances of the Respondent, Commission cannot be expected to pass order beyond the statutory prohibition and in violation of statutory provisions as quoted above. Further, the judgment of the Full Bench of National Commission referred to above, is binding upon the State Commission unless the same is modified or reversed by a larger bench or superior Court. In view of the above position and discussion made hereinunder above, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 10.6.2015 is hereby set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed.

[9]      The statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant or its authorised agent by the Registrar, on being identified by a Counsel known to the Commission.

[10]    Send the records of the case to the District Forum along with a copy of this order.

[11]    There shall be no order as to cost.