National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs R.C. Puri on 29 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2(2007)CPJ49(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 12.11.2002 of HP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla dismissing appeal against the order dated 30.5.2002 of a District Forum whereby petitioners/opposite parties were directed to pay amount of Rs. 4 lakh as compensation to the respondent/complainant.
2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Smt. Neena Puri, wife of respondent was undergoing treatment in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi since January 2001. In March 2001, treating doctor in Haemotology Department advised to show her bi-monthly blood test reports for proper treatment. It was alleged that on 29.5.2001, the respondent sent the blood test reports of his wife for the months of April and May 2001 by speed post from Dharamshala Head Post Office for being delivered to Smt. Sarla Bassi, D-23, Anand Niketan, New Delhi who was to show the reports to the treating doctor. It was assured by the Post Office that letter will be delivered on the next day. However, envelope containing the reports was distributed to the addresse on 6.6.2001. Since the treating doctor proceeded on leave on 4.6.2001, reports could not be shown to him and thus, proper treatment was not advised. It was further alleged that health of the respondent's wife deteriorated and she was given blood transfusion of two units at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Medical College and Hospital, Dharamshala on 13.6.2001. As her condition did not improve, the respondent was forced to bring her to AIMS, New Delhi on 30.6.2001. Treating doctor told the respondent that had he seen the reports earlier, he would have given proper treatment to his wife and her health not deteriorated. Respondent's wife was thereafter, admitted as an indoor patient in AIIMS on 10.8.2001, where she died on 26.8.2001. Alleging deficiency in service in delivering the letter sent by speed post late to said Smt. Sarla Bassi, the respondent filed complaint seeking compensation which was contested by the petitioner. Despatch of letter by speed post on 29.5.2001 was not denied. However, it was alleged that contents of letter were not within the knowledge of petitioners. It was pleaded that complaint was not maintainable in view of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Liability for payment of the compensation claimed was emphatically denied.
District Forum was of the view that on account of deficiency in service on part of petitioners in delivering the speed post letter late to the addressee, the respondent had lost his wife as she could not be advised proper treatment at AIIMS. As noticed above, compensation of Rs. 4 lakh was, thus, awarded to respondent. Appeal filed against District Forum's order by the petitioners was dismissed by the State Commission.
3. Contention advanced by Mr. R.N. Singh for petitioners was that the controversy in regard to quantum of compensation in this revision is fully covered by the decision of this Commission dated 18.9.2002 in R.P. Nos. 15 of 1997, Head Post Master, Post Office, Railway Board, Kurukshetra, Haryana and Ors. 1006 of 2001; Union of India and Ors. v. Brahm Dev Upadhyay and 1035 of 2002 - Varun Garg v. Assistant Post Master, Post Office and Ors. These 3 revision petitions were disposed of by the said common order dated 18.9.2002. It was pointed out by Mr. Singh that neither the name of treating doctor of the wife of respondent was disclosed in the complaint or affidavit filed by way of evidence by the respondent nor treating doctor examined as witness or his affidavit filed. Further, even the affidavit of Smt. Sarla Bassi indicating when did she show the blood test reports to treating doctor after 6.6.2001 was not filed. Death of Smt. Neena Puri was not as a direct result of delay in delivery of speed post letter to the said addressee.
4. In aforesaid decisions in R.P. Nos. 15 of 1997, 1006 of 2001 and 1035 of 2002, the liability of Post Office when there is delay or nondelivery of postal articles sent by speed post was examined. In exercise of power conferred by Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Central Government framed Indian Post Office Rules, 1933. By amendment to these statutory Rules in 1986, Rule 66B was introduced w.e.f. 1.8.1986 which pertains to speed post. Rules were further amended by notification GSR 40(E) dated 21.1.1999 which inserted the following conditions after Condition No. (5) of Rule 66B:
In case of any delay of domestic speed post parcels beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts from time-to-time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charge paid.
In the event of loss of domestic speed post articles or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charged paid Rs. 1,000 whichever is less.
5. Considering said Rule 66B and the provision contained in Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which provides for exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, this Commission held that in case of delay in delivery of speed post article beyond Posts from time-to-time, the compensation shall be equal to composite speed post charges paid; in the event of loss of speed post article or loss of contents or damage to the contents, the compensation payable shall be double the amount of the composite speed post charges paid or Rs. 1,000 whichever is less. Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Fora cannot grant compensation more than what is statutorily fixed. Thus, the consequences flowing as a result of delay in delivery of speed post article as in present case, has no relevance whatsoever in matter of award of compensation beyond what is statutorily fixed by Rule 66B. Aforesaid order of District Forum as affirmed by State Commission, therefore, cannot be legally sustained.
6. Consequently, while accepting revision, aforementioned orders dated 30.5.2002 and 12.11.2002 are set aside. Respondent is entitled to compensation only equal to composite speed post charges paid. Since respondent has been utilising the awarded amount of Rs. 4 lakh which he recovered from the petitioners, no separate order of cost to him is being made.
7. Respondent is allowed four weeks, time to refund to the petitioners the 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.