Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—Having suffered an award against it the 3 opposite parties have filed this appeal. The complainant M/s. Ensons Enterprises sent a parcel from Madras through speed post to be delivered to the consignee at New Delhi. The value of the consignment was Rs. 57,173.75. But the consignment was not delivered to the addressee. A letter was sent to the Postal Department about it. They wrote back saying that the matter was under consideration. Subsequently they sent a letter dated 24.11.1995 enclosing two cheques drawn on the Reserve Bank of India one for a sum of Rs. 940/- as double the postal charges incurred by the complainant and the other for Rs. 400/- as compensation. The complainant declined to receive these amounts and then he had filed the complaint for the said value of the consignment of Rs. 57,173.75 and also for compensation.

2. The opposite parties contended that the Post Man at New Delhi had committed theft of the consignment and they sent a sum of Rs. 940/- being the double of the post charges and an ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 400/- to the complainant but he had returned it after a lapse of 6 months questioning the quantum of compensation sent. The opposite party further contended that at the time of posting they were not informed about the value of the consignment and the articles were not insured. Therefore, the Postal Department was not liable to pay any compensation.

3. The District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It further held that the value of the consignment was Rs. 57,173.75 as alleged by the complainant. In the result, it directed the opposite parties to pay the said sum of Rs. 57,173.75 with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realisation and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the complaint.

4. Now in the appeal it is contented by the appellants/opposite parties that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act the Postal Department is absolved from liability. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, reads as follows :

“6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage—

The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.”

5. From this it is clear that the Government (Postal Department) is not liable for loss of any postal article unless any liability has been in an express terms undertaken by the Postal Department, and even no officer of the Post Office shall be liable to pay for any loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. In the present case, it is not the case of the complainant that any officer of the Postal Department was guilty of fraud or wilful act or default.

6. However, it is argued that we are concerned with the speed post and that does not come within the purview of Section 6. But it must be remembered that Section 6 clearly states that the Government shall not incur liability for reason of loss, mis-delivery or delay of or damage to any postal article. The words “any postal article” are important. These words “any postal article” is comprehensive to include ordinary post or speed post. It, therefore, follows that speed post also clearly comes within the ambit of Section 6. May be for speed post higher charges are paid than for ordinary post, but that does not matter for consideration of Section 6. This section does not make any such distinction. It is manifest, therefore, that the Officers mentioned as opposite parties cannot be held liable. In this view