IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in delivery of speed post will constitute deficiency in service on part of postal authority.

S.C. Vyas, President—This is an appeal preferred by a consumer in whose favour order has been passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) in complaint case No. 34/08 dated 3.7.08. The grievance of the appellant is that the amount awarded by the District Forum is meagre and needs to be enhanced. Only amount equivalent to double of that amount has been awarded only, as compensation.

2. Undisputedly, a letter was sent by the complainant/appellant by speed post to Jivan Deep Society, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon on 24.2.07 with a hope that it will reach to the addressee prior to 26.2.07, being a local address. The envelope was containing a tender for cleaning work. Envelope could not be reached to the addressee on 26.2.07 and when on 27.2.07 that envelope reached in the Office of the Jivan Deep Society, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon then the same was refused on the ground that time for submitting tender is already expired. Complainant later on learnt that his offer was lowest for the given work and because of the lapses on the part of the Postal Authority he had been deprived of the work, for which tenders were called and thereby had to suffer huge loss, so he has demanded compensation and filed complaint before District Forum.

3. In reply of the complaint it has been averred by respondent Post Office that the delay in delivery of post was not on account of any malafide intention of employees of the Post Office, but it was on account of human error, for which Postal Officials cannot be held responsible. Section 6 of Indian Post Act, 1898 has specifically referred to. This provision says that “in case of miss-delivery, non-delivery or delayed delivery of post only double amount of the postage can be awarded as compensation and nothing more than that.”

4. Learned District Forum after considering rival contentions has awarded double amount of postal stamps as compensation, which has not satisfied the complainant and that is why he has come before this Commission.

5. We have considered arguments of the complainant as well as learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record of the District Forum.

6. It is not disputed that envelope, which was addressed to Jivan Deep Society could be delivered to that office on 27.2.07 only, and same was posted on 24.2.07 through speed post, for which Rs. 25 were paid as postage by the complainant. Respondent has admitted in the written statement that there was some delay in delivery of this post, but it was on account of bonafide mistake committed by employees of Postal Authority and not a willful malafide act.

7. Appellant has drawn attention of this Commission towards tender notice and submitted that as per this tender notice, tenders were required to be submitted only through registered post or speed post and were required to be reached in the Office by evening of 26.2.07. It has been vehemently argued that as the envelope containing tender could not be delivered in the office of the addressee well in time so appellant has been deprived of the work contract. It is true that appellant could not be entrusted with the work contract because his tender could not reach to the office of the Jivan Deep Society well in time. The envelope containing tender, which was opened before District Forum contents endorsement to the effect that “as the time limit for accepting tender has already expired so the envelope has not been accepted.” It shows that envelope reached to the office after the prescribed time.

8. But at the same time it is also true that Postal Authority were not knowing that this envelope is containing a tender and there is a time limit fixed for delivery of this particular post to that particular office. The post was required to be dealt with as other ordinary envelope sent by speed post and was to be delivered within reasonable time as any other ordinary speed post. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted