Postal Departments Not Exempted From Liability For Delay Under Consumer Protection Act, Bihar State Commission Upholds Rs. 3 Lakhs Compensation
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) held the Postal Office, Rohtas liable for delaying the admission application by 19 days due to which the Complainant’s son could not get admission in JNU, Delhi. The State Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act provides...
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) held the Postal Office, Rohtas liable for delaying the admission application by 19 days due to which the Complainant’s son could not get admission in JNU, Delhi. The State Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedies and the liability exemption clause under the Indian Post Office Act does not have an overriding effect to restrict Consumer Commissions from awarding compensation.
Brief Facts:
Premnath Singh (“Complainant”) used the speed post service of the Post Office in Rohtas (Bihar) to send his son’s application for admission to JNU, Delhi for the academic year 2012-13. The application was supposed to reach JNU by 27.06.2012. However, the postal department delayed it by 19 days. As a result, the Complainant’s son could not get admission to the university. On inquiring about the reason for the delay, the postal department failed to furnish any reason. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtas, Bihar (“District Commission”). The District Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment and the cost of litigation. Subsequently, the postal department filed an appeal to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (“State Commission”).
The postal department contended that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 provided immunity to the postal department from any liability by reasons of loss, delay, damage or mis-delivery during transmission, except when the Central Government undertakes express liability.
Observations by the Commission:
The State Commission referred to the case of Post Office Hisar vs Dilwan Singh 2018 (4) CPJ (NC) 425, wherein it was held that deficiency by postal departments cannot be oversighted merely on the pretext of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and the Indian Post Office Rules. The State Commission further cited Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provided that remedies under this act are ‘additional’ remedies and as per Section 14(d) of the act, the District Commission is empowered to award compensation in light of the loss and injury sustained by the consumers.
Consequently, the State Commission upheld the order of the District Commission and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas Dn and Anr. vs Premnath Singh
Case No.: Appeal No. 262 of 2019
Advocate for the Complainant/Respondent: Ashok Kumar
Advocate for the Appellants: Sudhir Kumar Tiwari