The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not derogatory to any other enactment, and the Indian Post Offices Act bars a remedy under the Consumer Protection Act for non-delivery unless the loss is alleged and established to be malicious, fraudulent, or wilful.

Mr. Justice G.M. Mir, President—This is an appeal under Section 13 of J&K State Consumer Protection Act, 1987 against the judgment and order passed by the Divisional Forum, Jammu on 30.12.1992.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondents herein sent an application for allotment for a plot situated in Chandigarh on 26.7.1991. He sent the letter through speed post which had to be delivered to the addressee in Chandigarh on the following day. The last date for depositing the application forms was 31.7.1991. The speed post allocation however, came to be delivered at Chandigarh on 3.8.1991 at 5 p.m. It has been claimed by the respondent in the Division Forum that the appellant was responsible to have deliberately caused loss of property to him because of inadequacy of service. In the Divisional Forum, the appellant resisted the claim on the ground that for one reason or the other, no flights took place from Delhi to Chandigarh on the days intervening 27th to 3rd of August, 1991. A letter to this effect was on record from Delhi Manager of the appellant. The Divisional Forum has of course taken note of this but in our view has failed to give it the consideration it deserved. The factum of the flights not having taken place during the relevant days was established by the aforementioned letter of the Manager of the Appellant. It is, however, unfortunate that the letter did not give the cause of no-flights such as bad weather, cancellation of flights for strike by pilots etc. etc. on these days, Flights are now-a-days usually cancelled on grounds of non-availability of plane or for other reasons. There is, however, no allegation made by the complainant that die Air India have deliberately and intentionally failed to carry the Speed Post letter to the destination it was meant for. The respondent has nodoubt alleged that non-delivery of Speed Post Letter was intentional but there is no proof on that point on record nor it could be deduced from the facts of the case. The argument that the letter should have been under such circumstances sent by train is not entertainable as the same was booked to be taken to Chandigarh by Air and the concerned authorities could not have of its own diverted the manner and the route of transit.

3. According to Consumer Protection Act, The provisions therein are in addition to and not on derogations to any other enactment for the time being in force. The Indian Post Offices Act clearly bars a remedy under the Consumer Protection Act or any other Act for non-delivery of the article unless the loss in delivery is alleged and established to be malicious fraudulent or wilful. No evidence to that effect has been produced nor it can be presumed to exist under the facts of the case.

4. It has been laid down in the Revision Petition No. 175 of 1992 dated 15.4.1993 by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the services rendered by the Post Office were merely statutory and there was no contractual liability. The revision petition was, therefore, held not maintainable in view of Section 6 of Indian Post Offices Act as it was found that there was no loss or non-delivery on account of fraudulent or wilful act of any particular postal employee or the department. We are in complete agreement with this judgment of the National Redressal Commission.

5. For the fore-going reasons, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Divisional Forum Jammu is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Any Stay Order issued is hereby vacated.

Appeal allowed.

–