Mrs. Saroj Rajwade, Member—This revision has arisen from order dated 17.1.1996 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shivpuri (for short 'District Forum') in Complaint Case No. 36/1995, by which applicants were directed to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order till date of payment, together with Rs. 200/- as costs of suit.

2.The facts of the case are that a call letter for interview as posted from Gwalior on 2.3.1995 for the respondent at Shivpuri. It was delivered to the respondent on 8.3.1995 after the date of interview was over. Although the letter was sent by ordinary post, the District Forum took the view that there was deficiency in service on the part of applicant in that they delivered the letter late on the presumption that letter must have reached Shivpuri on 5.3.1995, although there is no seal with date the envelope. District Forum passed by order referred in para 1.

3. Non-applicant/complainant in his complaint before District Forum had complained about deficiency in service and had prayed for compensation of 5 lakhs of rupees. Revision petitioner/opposite party in his reply had denied the allegations about late delivery of letter and had also claimed immunity under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and guidelines issued by Postal Department. However, District Forum did not consider this point or at least there is no mention of such consideration in their order.

4. In his revision, the revision petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that it was illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. They mentioned Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act and averred that no responsibility lies on Postal Authorities in respect of delivery of ordinary letter. Applicant prayed for setting aside the order of District Forum.

5. Having heard both the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that this revision must be allowed. We are surprised that District Forum has admitted such frivolous complaint and with such exaggerated claim based on conjectures without any proof, which should have been dismissed in initial hearing. This Commission has consistently held the view that Rules in force cannot be challenged for their correctness or otherwise before the Consumer FORA. In the present case, the letter posted was an ordinary letter and not registered letter and also records do not show that non-applicant/complainant has been able to prove negligence on the part of Postal 1Department by any evidence or document. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 speaks of liability only to case of fraudulent or wilful act or default of the Officer of the Post Office. The scope and ambit of Section 6 was considered by the National Commission in case of The Presidency Post-Master and Another v. Dr. U. Shankar Rao, II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC), it was observed in paras 10,11 & 12 thus :

10. After hearing the parties we are of the opinion that the argument of the learned Counsel for the respective revision petitioners has force. It was rightly argued that Section 3 of the Act clearly are in addition to but not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This shows that the Act provides additional means of obtaining remedy by a Consumer but if the remedy is barred under any other Act, then the various Forums constituted under the Act cannot grant the remedy prayed for.

11. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as follows :

"The Governments shall notincur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to and postal article in course of transmission by post, except insofar as such liability any in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by rely of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default."

Counsel for the