State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna: While deliberating over the instant appeal filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas, wherein they were aggrieved by the order of DCDRC holding the postal department liable for delayed delivery of the complainant’s speed post; the Bench comprising of Sanjay Kumar, J., (President)* and Ram Prawesh Das (Member), upheld decision of the District Commission and reiterated the position taken by the NCDRC in Dr. Ravi Agarwal v. Speed Post, Rajasthan University, 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 690, that person who has sent a speed post, is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he had paid the charges for the same. It was further stated that Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not seem to be applicable and Consumer Protection Act is not in derogation of any other law in force for the time being.
The complainant’s son had sent an application for his admission in M.Sc. (Biotechnology) course in JNU, Delhi, via speed post on 22-06-2012. The post was supposed to reach its destination latest on 27-06-2012. However, due to negligence of the postal department, delivery of the speed post was delayed by 19 days, and consequently, the complainant’s son lost his opportunity to be admitted in the afore-stated course.
The complainant wanted to know the reason for the said delay, but the postal department did not furnish any reason. The complainant thus knocked the doors of the District Consumer Commission, Rohtas for monetary compensation of Rs 3,00,000. Complainant contended that due to the negligence of the postal department, his son could not get admission in JNU’s M.Sc. (Biotechnology) course and that this negligence amounts to deficiency in services.
The District Commission had held the postal department liable and awarded the complainant compensation of Rs 50,000 as well as Rs 10,000 as cost of litigation.
Per contra, the postal department argued that they are immune from any liability for loss, delay, damage or mis-delivery of any postal article in course of transmission by post (except through express terms) by the virtue of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898.
Perusing the case and the contention, the State Commission relied on cases decided by NCDRC wherein the National Commission had clearly held that sender of the speed post is a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act and the postal department cannot escape its liability.
With the afore-stated perusal and reliance on precedents, the State Commission did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission.
[Superintendent of Post Offices v. Premnath Singh, Appeal No. 262 of 2019, decided on 17-11-2023]
*Order by Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Appellant- Sudhir Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Respondent/complainant- Ashok Kumar, Advocate
