Gross negligence of the postal authorities in handling the parcel, which resulted in the address being besmeared and the parcel being returned to the sender, was not protected under Section 6 of the Post Offices Act.

Mr. Justice P.M. Chauhan, President— This appeal is directed against the order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad at Navsari holding that the appellants were negligent in handling the parcels and because of their negligence, the address on the post parcel were besmeared/ obliterated and, therefore, could not be sent by the post office at Bombay to the addressee at Japan and, therefore, the respondent-complainant suffered loss. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum condoned the contention that the appellants were protected under the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Offices Act and, therefore, not liable for any damages or compensation.

2. The respondent handed over three samples to be delivered at Japan, Singapore and Rishikesh at the G.I.D.C. Post Office at Vapi. The samples of the product to be sent to Japan valued at Rs. 1000/-, that of to be sent to Singapore valued at Rs. 380/- and the sample for Rishikesh valued at Rs. 25/-. Out of the three parcels booked on 13.7.92, two parcels were returned after about two months in torn conditions and the respondent on enquiry came to know that the postal authorities had sent the parcel to the main post office at Vapi from where the same were sent to Bombay. At Vapi the parcels were not properly handled and attended and because of the monsoon the address written in ink on parcel had besmeared. The post office at Bombay therefore could not read the addresses as they were illegible and the parcels were then returned to the complainant. The complainant also stated that likewise about 500 parcels were returned from different parts of the country to the post office at G.I.D.C, Vapi. The Respondent, even though had grievance about two parcels, asserted the claim for one parcel sent to Japan. According to the respondent, even though short time was left for presentation of the samples, it was sent through courier but the time limit fixed for sending the parcel to Japan had expired and reached late and, therefore, respondent could not be successful to get the order for supply of the articles as the order was placed with other producers. If at all the parcel would have been delivered to the addressee, the complainant could have received the order worth about Rs. 5 lakhs and earned profit of atleast Rs. 75,000/-. The respondent had also spent Rs. 2000/- for enquiry about the parcel as the delay was caused in delivering to the addressee. The samples were deteriorated and, therefore, the complainant suffered loss of Rs. 3200/- and as parcels were sent in torn condition loss caused was Rs. 1400/-. The respondent accordingly claimed Rs. 86,245/- for the deficiency in service of the appellants.

3. The appellants-opponents by written statement asserted that they were not liable to pay the damages and were protected under the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Offices Act. They also contended that District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint and the respondent was not consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The booking of the parcel was, however, admitted but it was asserted that they were taken to Bombay and due care was taken and they were not negligent in handling at any stage of the transit. According to the appellants, the respondent had not written the address on the parcel properly and were illegible and, therefore, it was difficult to know where the parcels were to be sent and the parcels could not be served to the addressee only because of the negligence of the respondent and they were returned by the post office at Bombay. The alleged loss by the respondent is also denied.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the respondent is consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It also held that the parcel was negligently handled and, therefore, not served. In view of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the very fact that th