SPEED POST CUSTOMER CARE CENTRE & ORS.
O/o. The Chief PMG, WB Circle, Yogajog Bhawan
Kolkata - 700012
West Bengal                                                         ...........Petitioner(s)
                                                        Versus     
NIRANJAN SAHOO
XAVIER INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SERVICE,
POST BAG NO-7, PARUAL ROAD,
RANCHI
JHARKHAND                                                  ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:     
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
     HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

Dated : 06 Apr 2015

JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      The complainant, Niranjan Sahoo was sent an interview letter by Institute of Development Studies, Kolkata, requesting him to appear for an interview for selection to a faculty position, at its campus on 02-06-2007. The letter dispatched by the aforesaid institute was posted through speed post on 22-05-2007 but came to be delivered to the complainant on 06-06-2007, four days after the date of interview. As a result, the complainant could not appear in the interview and, therefore, lost a chance for being considered for the aforesaid post.

2.      This is also the case of the complainant that on 04-08-2007,  Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar National Institute of Social Science, Indore sent a letter addressed to his brother, which reached him on 29-08-2007. As a result, his younger brother lost the opportunity for admission in the aforesaid institute. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid delays and consequent loss of opportunities the complainant approached the concerned District Forum, seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.9,99,000/- being the expenditure incurred in acquiring educational qualifications required for the job and Rs.10,00,000/- on account of mental compensation, etc..

3.      The complaint was resisted by Union of India, primarily relying upon the relevant rule which stipulated that in case of delivery of domestic speed post article 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. It was also stated in the aforesaid reply that even the norms stipulated by the post office were not applicable since Belonia is not a National Speed Post Centre and Sarasima is a branch post office which is 150 kilometers away from Agartala. The post office, however, did not deny the booking of the speed post articles with them on the dates mentioned in the complaint.

4.      Vide its order dated 10-11-2008 the concerned District Forum directed the opposite parties in the complaint to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The interest was to increase to 12% per annum in case payment was not made within two months. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, both the parties filed appeals before the concerned State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 21-10-2009 the State Commission enhanced the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and also directed the Union of India to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation, etc., to the complainant.

4.      Both the parties being dissatisfied with the order passed by the State Commission have filed these two separate revision petitions. Revision Petition No.717 of 2010 has been filed by Union of India through the Manager, Speed Post Customer Care Centre whereas Revision Petition No.896 of 2015 has been filed by the complainant. There is a delay of as many as 1981 days in filing the Revision Petition No.896 of 2015 and, therefore, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant.

5.      Rule 66B of the Indian Post Office Rules, framed by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred upon by Section 21 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, deals with the payment of compensation in case of delay in delivery or loss of an article sent by speed post and reads as under:

          “In case of delay in delivery of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the Department of Post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charges paid.”

6.      In Union of India Vs. Dr. Puran Chandra Joshi, III (2006) CPJ 120 (NC) there was a delay in delivery of article sent to the complainant through the post office. Being aggrieved from the said delay the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The District Forum granted compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- to him along with cost of litigation amounting to Rs.2,000/-. The said order having been upheld by the State Commission, the Union of India approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. Relying upon Rule 66B extracted hereinbefore it was held by this Commission that the complainant was entitled only to composite speed post charges as compensation.

7.      It would, thus, be seen that in case there is a delay of delivery of a domestic speed post article beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts the compensation has to be an amount equal to the composite speed post charges paid by the consumer. Though it can hardly be disputed that an unreasonable delay in delivery of an article sent by speed post will constitute deficiency unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the said delay, the consumer fora are not empowered to grant any compensation beyond what has been statutorily fixed by way of the aforesaid rule framed by Central Government. Therefore, even if it is presumed that the delay in delivery of speed post article to the complainant was beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts, the actual compensation would not exceed the composite speed post charges paid to the Department of Posts.

8.      In the case of non-delivery of the speed post article carrying interview letter for him, the complainant was entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.20/- which is stated to be the amount paid to the post office for delivery of the said article by speed post. The liability of the post office cannot exceed the aforesaid amount in a case of delay in delivery of an article sent by speed post.

9.      Coming to the delay in delivery of letter sent to the brother of the complainant by Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar National Institute of Social Science, Indore, since neither the complainant paid for the aforesaid speed post article nor was he its beneficiary, he has no locus standi to institute a complaint on account of delay in delivery of the said article. The complaint in this regard could have been filed either by Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar National Institute of Social Science, Indore, or by the brother of the complainant, he being the beneficiary of the services engaged by the institute which handed over the letter to the aforesaid post office for being delivered to the addressee.

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. It is stated that the complainant has received substantial amount in compliance of the order passed by the fora below. He is directed to refund the balance amount, after deducting the amount of Rs.20/- from it, within four weeks from today failing which he will pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date he received the said amount till the date it is paid to the concerned Post Office.

          Both the revision petitions stand disposed of.