DEPARTMENT OF POST & 3 ORS. INFORMATION & BROADCASTING MINISTRY THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL, NEW DELHI Vs. GAJANAND SHARMA S/O SHRI BIRDICHAND SHARMA, R/O NEAR RAILWAY PHATKA SATANAND COLONY MANDAWAR MAHUA ROAD, DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Challenge in this Revision Petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') is to the order dated 03.11.2015 in First Appeal No. 1396/2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short, the State Commission ). By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the Complainant and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dosa, Rajasthan (in short, the District Forum ) directing the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant, a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 as damages, together with Rs. 10,000.00 as costs, along with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e., 25.02.2011, till the date of realization.

(2.) The facts material to the case are that the Complainant, on 08.05.2010 sent an Application Form through Speed Post vide No. ER015200621 IN from Post Office, Mahua, Mandawar Road, Mandawar, Mahua to the Principal Registrar, High Court of Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. It was averred that the last date of receipt of the said Application Form in the Office of the Principal Registrar, High Court of Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, was 12.05.2010 and, therefore, the Complainant had dispatched the Application five days before the due date. It was pleaded that only on account of negligence of the Opposite Parties that the Art. was delivered two days later, i.e., two days after the last date of 12.05.2010 and on account of this reason, the Application of the Complainant for the Post of Civil Judge, Jr. Division was rejected on the ground that the Application was received on 14.05.2010. The Registrar vide letter dated 30.06.2010 informed the same to the Complainant. It was pleaded that the Complainant applied under RTI Act, 2005, seeking information about the said delay, under which application, he received information that the said Speed Post Dak ought to be delivered within a minimum period of 48 hours to a maximum period of 72 hours. The Complainant specifically averred that he had spent lakhs of Rupees for the preparation of his exam as he had taken a house on rent, in Jaipur and his parents had borrowed a loan of Rs. 2,58,000.00, on a high interest and it is only on account of negligence of the Postal Department that he could not appear for the Judicial Officer's Exam and that it was always his dream to join the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services. The Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 27.01.2011 demanding that the Opposite Parties should pay damages for their negligence, but received no response. Hence the Complainant seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs. 7,00,000.00 together with litigation expenses and costs.

(3.) The Postal Department filed its Written Version stating that the Department does not have any knowledge as to what date the said article should reach the destination and that the delay caused in delivering of the article is not because of intentional negligence. All other allegations were denied except for the fact that the postal article bearing No. ER015200621 IN was sent by the Complainant on 08.05.2010. It was admitted that notice dated 27.01.2011 was received by the Opposite Parties and they replied vide letter dated 01.02.2011 stating that an inspection is being conducted and that on receipt of the report, they would be informing the Complainant. They further submitted that the said article was delivered to the addressee on 14.05.2010. It was averred that the Postal Department was exempted from any responsibility under Sec. 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 in case of any loss, wrong delivery or delay and if the concerned officer, has committed the act wilfully, only then the Department could be held responsible. It was pleaded that Speed Post service is a premium service in which, after the fixed time period, if there is any delay in the delivery of the article, there is a provision for refund of the amount paid in the form of Speed Post charges for the damages and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 22.00 was refunded. The Postal Department discharges a sovereign act and, therefore, the services rendered by the Postal Department are constitutional in nature and they cannot be made liable under Sec. 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 and hence cannot be made liable as the Complainant could not establish that there was any deficiency in service on behalf of the Postal Authorities in sending the article late to the said destination.