NCDRC: Postal Department Is Exempted From Any Liability For Delay In Delivery Unless The Central Govt. Undertakes It In Expressed Terms

Update: 2023-03-14 11:30 GMT
story

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and presiding member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar reversed the District Forum’s decision, wherein compensation was ordered to be grated to a petitioner whose article suffered a delayed delivery after it was handed over to the Postal Department. The bench upheld the State Commission’s reasoning that...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and presiding member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar reversed the District Forum’s decision, wherein compensation was ordered to be grated to a petitioner whose article suffered a delayed delivery after it was handed over to the Postal Department. The bench upheld the State Commission’s reasoning that is it a settled position of law that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the postal department is exempted from any liability for delay in delivery unless the central govt. undertakes it in expressed terms.

Brief Facts:

The Complainant/Petitioner, being a member of Niswiz Holidays Company (“Company”), sent a holiday platter to the said company for a holiday package of Agra via speed post on 24.12.2014. The speed post was registered at Sector-12, Mini Secretariat, Faridabad Post Office (“Respondent”) by paying Rs. 39/- as postal charges. The speed post was supposed to be delivered to the company latest by 26.12.2014, i.e., within 2 days. However, it was delivered on 06.01.2015. The grievance of the petitioner was that he paid Rs. 10,000/- to the Company as package charges, which were non-refundable and spent Rs. 20,000/- on shopping for the said holiday. Due to the late delivery, the aforementioned package was not accepted and sanctioned by the company which resulted into a loss of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner who could not attend the tour subsequently. After serving a legal notice to the respondent, the petitioner filed a complaint in the District Commission which partly allowed the complaint. The respondent remained dissatisfied with the order and hence filed an appeal before the State Commission which absolved the respondent of any liability in light of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the State Commission, the petitioner filed this revision petition before the NCDRC.

The contention of the respondent was that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Postal Department is exempted from paying compensation for the delay in delivery of an Article. Further, as per the Citizen Charter, the standard delivery time is 4-6 days excluding the day of posting, Sundays, effect of strikes and bandhs, etc. The respondents had already paid double the amount of the speed post charges, i.e., Rs. 78/- to the petitioner as prescribed under the Departmental Rules as a compensation for delay in delivery.

Observations of the Commission:

The NCDRC perused the relevant provisions applicable on this case situation mainly Sections 6 and 21 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1989; Notification No. GSR 40 (E); and, Circular No. 43-4/87 BDD issued by the Department of Post. It concluded that Section 6 provides immunity to the Government, i.e., the Postal Department from any liability by reason of loss, mis delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in case where in expressed terms, the liability is undertaken by the Central Government. Thus, the NCDRC found no deficiency in service by the respondent even when there was a delay in delivering the speed post article. Reliance was placed on Union of India & ors. vs M.L. Bora 2010 SCC OnLine NCDRC 290, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission interpreted Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 to exempt the Postal Department from any liability for such delays.

With the aforementioned observations, the order passed by the District Commission was modified and the revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Case: Yogesh Kumar vs Superintendent, Indian Postal Department

Case No.: Revision Petition No. 3246 of 2016

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Bijender Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:Mr. H.L. Sharma

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Tags:    

Similar News