MANAGING DIRECTOR MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. RAJESH MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The entire controversy in the instant appeals is dependent upon meaning to be put to the language used in Sec.6 of the Post Office Act and then conclude as to which of the authorities of the Honble N. C. D. R. C. may be applicable to the facts at hand. Admittedly the complainant Miss Sunita Sharma has lost the chance of her life to be a Member of Higher Judicial Services, Rajasthan because of non-delivery of a letter to the Judicial Commission, Rajasthan within time. She was provisionally allowed to appear and subsequently she was disallowed by the said Commission. Her intimation card was cancelled and she was treated as a non-applicant.

(2.) In the judgment pronounced by the Honble N. C. D. R. C. in the case of The Post Master V/s. G. Hanumantha Reddy available in the digest of National Commission and State Commission on Consumer Cases 1986-94 it is held that : we do not find any force in the contention advanced by the revision petitioner in Revision Petition No.363 of 1993. In our opinion Sec.6 of the Indian Post Offices Act will not operate to preclude claims for compensation being made against the Postal Department for non-delivery of articles despatched by speed post/while accepting letters and articles for transmission by speed post the Postal Department has undertaken to deliver the articles within the specified period of time and in consideration thereof a substantial extra charge is levied by way of speed post charges which is sometimes as much as 20 times the normal postal rate. In such a situation the bar under Sec.6 will not apply and it is open to the party aggrieved by the non-delivery or delay in delivery of an article sent by speed post to put forward a claim for compensation as against the Postal Department.

(3.) The said case law dealt with a matter which was covered specifically by speed post despatch of the Postal Department. In the appeals at hand the despatch was also made through speed post.