National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Postmaster General Kerala & Ors. vs Kiron Rasheed on 31 March, 2011
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 781 OF 2010
(Against
the order dated 24.06.2009 in Appeal No.
207/2009
of the
State Commission, Kerala)
1. The
Postmaster General Kerala
2. The Sr. Supdt. Of Post Office,
Kollam Division Kollam 691001
3. The
Postmaster
Perinad Post Office, Kollam .Petitioners
Versus
Kiron Rasheed
A.S. Manzil,
Kureepuzha
Perinad Post Office
Kollam-691604 .........Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
HONBLE
MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioners : Mr. R. N. Singh , Advocate
PRONOUNCED
ON: 31.3.2011
ORDER
PER MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
1. This revision petition is filed by the Postmaster General of Kerala, with a delay of 136 days, over and above the permissible period. In the application seeking to have this delay condoned, an attempt has been made to explain it as the requirement of the Department to follow the administrative formalities. According to the Revision Petitioner (RP/OP), between the receipt of the copy of the impugned order and the decision to file this revision petition, nearly 5 months have been taken for these administrative formalities. Delay of another month is explained as caused by preoccupation of the government counsel.
2. This application for condonation of delay needs to be seen with reference to the provision in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, read with Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. In terms of the same, with effect from 15th March 2003, a revision petition is to be filed within 90 days from the date of the impugned order or the date of receipt thereof. However, Section 24 would allow this Commission to entertain a petition filed beyond this period, if the petitioner is able to satisfy us that he had sufficient cause for not filing the petition within this period. In the present case, we find no sufficient cause to justify the delay of 136 days. The Revision Petition therefore, fails on the ground of limitation.
3. Coming to the merits, the only substantive ground for challenge to the order of the Kerala State Disputes Redressal Commission is that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the RP/OP incurs no liability for loss, mis-delivery or damage/delay in delivery, except when caused fraudulently or willfully. This ground was raised before, and examined in sufficient detail, in the impugned order. The State Commission has very rightly observed that this provision is not in any way connected with the modernized forms of transactions like speed post, e-mail, money transfer etc.
4. In the case before us, the interview letter for the post of Assistant Manager in the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, was sent to the Complainant/Respondent at Kollam, Kerala by Speed Post. It was (as admitted by RP/OP in the Memorandum of Appeal before the State Commission) sent on 16.8.2005 but delivered to him on 22.8.2005. As the interview was scheduled for 25.8.2005 at Delhi, the Complainant /Respondent was left with no choice but to travel by air, incurring extra expenditure. Therefore, both fora below have awarded the air ticket cost in favour of the Complainant.
5. The impugned order has also referred to the notification of 21.1.1999 of the Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts which was relied upon by the Appellant/OP. Under this notification, In case of delay in delivery of domestic speed post articles 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 charges paid. The State Commission has held that this stipulation does not come in the way of the order of the District Forum awarding the cost of air ticket in favour of the Complainant.
6. We are in agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. In the circumstances of this case, the delay in delivery of the communication, though sent by Speed Post, becomes the proximate cause for the expenditure on air travel. Therefore, the order of the District Forum to pay the cost of air ticket was well within its powers under Section 14(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
7. For the reasons above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. The same is dismissed, both on limitation and merits. The parties shall bear their own costs.
.
(R.C.JAIN, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER ..
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-