A consumer cannot claim compensation for a delay in service caused by a strike, as it is considered force majeure and absolves the service provider of liability.

Mr. Justice R.G. Desai, President — The complainant was a candidate to appear for the Inter-mediate Examination of Institute of Cost & Work Accountants of India (for short the I.C.W.A.) to be held during 26th to 29th December, 1990. The Bangalore Chapter which trained him for the examination failed to provide Admit Card when approached by the candidate on 13.12.1990. The candidate was informed that his Admit Card was not received from their Calcutta Main Office and he was advised to wait for the receipt of the same from Calcutta Office to whom they were referring the matter. Even on 24.12.1990 the complainant did not receive the admit card from the Calcutta Officer and so he could not appear for the said examination. On 14.1.1991, by ordinary post the Admit Card and examination sheet were received by the complainant. He noticed from the postal envelope that the Calcutta Branch of ICWA had posted the letter and the admit card on 18.12.90. Hence, there was a delay of 27 days caused by the Postal Department in delivering the admit card to him. Hence, he has filed this complaint for compensation of Rs. 1,56,000/- against the Postal Department on account of its negligence.

2. The complaint is resisted by respondents 1 & 2 by contending inter-alia that the compliant is not maintainable, that the Postal Department is not liable to pay any damages on account of delay, in view of Section (6) of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898; that the delay was due to heavy rains disrupting the rail traffic during November-December 1990 and due to the strike of the RMS Employees, who refused to perform overtime during December 11th to 18th; that the complainant could have approached the Bangalore Office and got the provisional admit card and appeared for the examination; that the complainant failed to send a telegram to the Head Office as instructed in Instruction No. 13 appended to the application form for admission; that the complainant was not serious to take up the said examination, as he has not acted as per the instruction and that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. Respondents 3 & 4 have resisted the complaint by contending inter-alia, that the complaint is false, frivolous, baseless and vexatious; that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act with reference to respondents 3 and 4, that the complainant failed to comply with instruction No. 13, as he failed to send a telegram about the non-receipt of the admit card ten days before the first day of the examination, that the complainant who approached the Bangalore Chapter on 13.12.90, was told to go over there, in case he did not receive the admit card 10 days prior to the examination and to collect the provisional admit card to be issued by the Bangalore Chapter and that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

4. The complainant has given evidence as CW 1 and has produced Exhibits C 1 and C 2. RWs 1 to 3 are examined on behalf of the respondents and exhibits R 1 to R 5 have been marked.

5. The first point that arises for determination in this case is whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

6. It is not disputed that the complainant was undergoing coaching at the Bangalore Branch of ICWA by paying fees and that he had sent in application form for admission to the examination to be conducted during 26th to 29th December, 1990 by paying necessary examination fees. Hence, it is clear that he had engaged the services of respondents 3 and 4 for consideration. No doubt, the Admission Card was posted at Calcutta by respondent No. 3. That cover was addressed to the complainant. Hence, it can be said that the complainant was the beneficiary of the services of the Postal Department which were hired by respondent No. 3 for consideration. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant is a consumer w