anilsharma (Advocate) 08 April 2009

ouestion regarding consumer

Dear Friends,

Any body can give me a judgement on "delay in delivery of general post by the Post office"

Reply Follow

3 Replies

sanjay singh thakur (advocate) 09 April 2009

Dear Anil

Any citation on the issue will not serve your purpose this is because postal Department on the plea of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1886 get exempted from any deficiency in service on their part. Moreover the Sec.6 of the above mentioned Act essentially require intentional delay as well as existence of enemity with the concerned postal staff to claim deficiency in service and the burden to prove that there was enemity lies upon the Complainant.

Regards.

Rajneesh Malhotra (Advocate) 09 April 2009

II (2007) CPJ 49 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.—Petitioners

versus

R.C. PURI—Respondent

Revision Petition No. 314 of 2003—Decided on 29.8.2005

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 14(1)(d), 21(b) — Indian Post Office Act, 1898 — Section 6, Rule 66B — Delay in delivery of postal articles — Exemption from liability for — Complainant sent blood test reports of his wife through postal authorities on 29.5.2001 which was delivered on 6.6.2001 — Report could not be shown to treating doctor in time — Alleged deficiency in service — Fora below allowed complaint and awarded Rs. 4 lakh as compensation — Hence appeal — Fora cannot grant compensation more than what is statutorily fixed — Refund to petitioners amount of Rs. 4 lakh minus compensation equal to composite speed post charges paid failing which he shall be liable to pay 15% p.a. interest thereon.

[Paras 4, 5 and 6]

Result : Revision allowed.

Cases referred :

1. *Head Post Master, Post Office, Railway Board, Kurukshetra, Haryana & Ors.,* R.P. Nos. 15 of 1997, dated 18.9.2002. (Referred)	[Para 3]
2. *Union of India & Ors.* v. *Brahm Dev Upadhyay,* 1006 of 2001. (Referred)	[Para 3]
3. *Varun Garg* v. *Assistant Post Master, Post Office & Ors.,* 1035 of 2002. (Referred)