SPEED POST Vs. LAXMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against order of reversal recorded by State Commission making petitioner answerable to make good loss suffered by respondent.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that respondent booked an article through speed post from RMS, Railway Station, Jaipur for its delivery to Secretary, Aravali Security and Finance Ltd., UCO Bank Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110 001 on 21.9.1995. Object of sending article in question with speed post was its expected delivery on 22.9.1995. As delivery of article was delayed by one day, that having been delivered on 23.9.1995, respondent assessing pecuniary loss which he had allegedly suffered, filed a consumer complaint with District Forum. The complaint was resisted by petitioner, and District Forum, in view of immunity enjoyed by postal department under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, finding no deficiency in service on part of petitioner, dismissed complaint.

(3.) IN appeal that was preferred by the respondent, finding was reversed by State Commission holding that immunity provided under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act was not blanket, and did not provide total indemnity for any lapses of postal authorities. The State Commission resultantly, while accepting appeal, directed petitioner authority to pay lump sum amount of Rs. 3,000 as compensation to respondent within a period of two months, failure of which was to carry interest @ 6% p.a. from date of filing of complaint. It is against these findings of State Commission that petitioner is in revision before us. We have heard learned Counsel for petitioner and also Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent with rapt attention. Contentions were raised on behalf of petitioner that cut off time for articles to be booked through Railway Postal Services, Jaipur was 5.00 p.m., which was supported by list of booking centre. Articles booked after 5.00 p.m., consequently, had to be delivered in usual course of events, on the next day. As for deficiency attributed to petitioner authority by State Commission, contentions are that postal authority by implication of law enjoys total immunity for delayed delivery of articles or for those which are lost in transit, except in cases of fraud or wilful negligence. The provisions contained in Section 6 of the Post Office Act are in the following terms: