The liability of the postal department for loss or damage of articles entrusted to them for carriage is restricted to Rs. 100 unless wilful act of negligence or fraud is proven.

Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra, Presiding Member—This revision petition is filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal with some modifications. The fact which lead to the filing of the complaint are as under :

2. The complainant, M/s. Keltron Projectors Ltd., entrusted a speed post parcel on 2.11.1993 to Speed Post Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, for despatch to the Post Graduate Institute, Medical Education and Research Institute, Chandigarh. The addressee refused to accept the parcel as it was found in a damaged condition. Thus the parcel was returned undelivered and was taken delivery of by the complainant on 24.11.1993. According to the complainant the parcel contained the slide projectors and accessories and one projector and some other items in the parcel were found missing when taking delivery. The complainant sent notice claiming compensation but the opposite party gave reply informing that the case is under investigation and in any event the opposite parties were not liable to pay more than Rs. 100/- as per rules. Feeling aggrieved with this type of attitude of the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming a compensation of Rs. 29,987.50. The District Forum on the basis of the evidence lead before it, found that the case of the complainant was genuine and awarded Rs. 18,397.50 as the value of the lost goods and Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant went in appeal to the State Commission which allowed the appeal in the following words:

“We perused the records and heard the Counsel. It was argued before us on behalf of the appellants that the service of speed post is a special service governed by the special contract relating to the same and the liability of the appellants for loss or damage of articles entrusted with them for carriage is restricted to Rs. 200/- as per the Circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications. We do not know whether the said Circular has any statutory force. Anyway, it is not applicable in the present case as the cause of action here arose in 1993. The Circular is dated 10.10.1995. The complainant has failed to prove any wilful act of negligence or fraud and as such the compensation awarded by the Forum cannot be sustained. The complainant did not insure the goods entrusted for transmission. They have also not packed the goods in the presence of any officer of the Postal Department. We see force in the arguments advanced by the appellants. We feel the amount of damages awarded by the Forum is against the Rules governing the matter. Considering all the aspects of this case we feel an amount of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation, though we are forced to fix the compensation to the best of our judgment in the absence of clinching evidence regarding the value of lost goods of damage sustained. We allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Forum. The appellants are directed to pay the above said sum of Rs. 10,000/- within one month from the receipt of this order. The complainant will be entitled to cost which we fix at Rs. 1,000/- including the cost awarded by the District Forum.”

3. We have heard both the sides. We have also gone through the impugned order as well as the order of the District Forum. Before proceeding further, we reproduce Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, which reads as under :

“No officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default”.

4. Reading the two provisions together it will be necessary for a Court to return the finding of negligence before awarding any amount in excess of Rs. 100/- provided the quantum of loss sustained is established on evidence. The State Commission itself has returned the finding