The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being a special enactment, takes precedence over older provisions such as Section 48(c) of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, in cases of delayed money order delivery.

Mr. Justice Surinder Sarup, President—This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Nurpur, dated 20.6.2001, whereby holding the appellants guilty of fault for the delay in sending the money order of the respondent as complainant to his son at Bhopal (M.P.) in such a manner that it was delivered after considerable delay, the appellants have been directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- alongwith litigation charges of Rs. 2,000/-.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent who is present in person. We have also examined the record. The admitted facts are that the money order was sent by the respondent to his son and that it was delivered approximately after two months from the date on which it was received in the concerned Post Office. The learned Counsel for the appellants before us is placing strong reliance on the provisions of Section 48(c) of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, which reads :

“No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against (the Government) or any officer of the Post Office in respect of—

xxx

xxx

xxx

(c) the payment of any money order being refused or delayed by or on account of, any accidental neglect omission or mistake, by, or on the part of an officer of the Post Office, or for any other cause whatsoever, other than fraud or wilful act or default of such officer.”

xxx

xxx

xxx

This provision acts as a complete bar to the institution of and entertaining the complaint of the respondent by the learned Forum below. With utmost respect, we do not subscribe to this view inasmuch as the aforesaid provision was enacted way back in the year 1898, whereas the Consumer Law has come into force almost towards the last decade of the 20th Century. In our considered view, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being a special enactment brought on the statute book solely for the purpose of granting relief(s) to the hapless consumers in the country against the rampant instances of deficiency in service by various parties, the object and purpose of the same cannot be defeated by a provision as contained under Section 48(c) ibid. Moreover, this Commission had an occasion to consider somewhat similar provision in respect of registered article under the same enactment vide Section 6 thereof which relates to immunity from liability for the loss etc. of any postal article in the course of its transmission. In that case i.e. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. v. Bal Krishan & Anr., III (2001) CPJ 494=Latest HLJ 2001 (HP) 620, this Commission came to the conclusion that in case of mis-delivery due to wilful act, default etc. of the Postal employee, Central Government would be liable to pay damages.

3. The circumstances in the present case are somewhat similar. No doubt, it has been contended that there is no proof of any wilful act or default on the part of the employees of the appellants-Department, but the surrounding circumstances in the present case do suggest such a default, the very factum of belated delivery of the money order at its destination is an act suggesting default on the part of the employees of the Postal Department.

4. We, however, find that awarding of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation charges in the present case is much on the higher side. Therefore, while maintaining the award of Rs. 1,000/-, we reduce the litigation charges to Rs. 500/-.Except for this modification, the impugned order is upheld and is hereby maintained. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Appeal disposed of.

–