Ashok Bhan, President—Union of India and Others-petitioners herein, who were the Opposite Parties before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura District, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short), being aggrieved by the Order dated 22.02.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala, Tripura (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) in First Appeal No.16 of 2004, have filed the present Revision Petition. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has confirmed the Order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum by the impugned Order had directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent/complainant by way of compensation and Rs.15,000/-towards the cost of medicine. The above amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 29.09.2003 failing which the rate of interest would be 12% p.a.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:-

Respondent/complainant filed a Complainant before the District Forum alleging that his father, late Shri Bijay Kanti Kilikdar, who was a serving Judicial Officer, had undergone a Kidney transplant in the year 1997 and, as per medical advise, he was required to take Cyclosporing Saudium Neoral (25 mg.) which is an imported medicine and is distributed in India by Novarits India Private Limited, Chennai. According to him, the said drug is a life saving drug, which his father was taking regularly. Any interruption in taking the said drug, even for a day, can be dangerous to life. That his father had sent a sum of Rs.10,758/- by a demand draft bearing no.416271 dated 29.04.2003 to Novarits India Private Limited, Chennai for two packets of 50 mg Saudium Neoral and three packets of 25 mg. Sandiumm Neoral and the said company, after having received the demand draft, dispatched the said medicines by speed post parcel on 03.04.2003 to him at Agartala. On receipt of the intimation of arrival of the speed post parcel, the father of the respondent sent one of his representatives to Agartala Head Post Office on 19.05.2003 to receive the parcel. On inspection, it was found that the parcel was severely damaged and there was a big hole and the parcel contained plastic flowers and leaves. No medicine was received in the packet. As the medicine was not received, a Complaint was lodged with Director, Postal Services and the Post Master, Agartala Head Post Office on 20.05.2003 through an Advocate and in response to the said Complaint, the Deputy Superintendent, Office of the Director, Postal Services requested the Post Master to take necessary action as per Rule and also directed him to make necessary disposal of the article. Thereafter, the respondent was contacted over telephone and was requested to take delivery of the said damaged packet. On 23.05.2003, respondent along with two other persons went to Agartala Head Post Office and made a request to the Postal Authority to prepare an inventory of the articles received. Accordingly, an inventory was prepared in which it was recorded that the contents of the speed post parcel were plastic flowers, leaves and cash memo issued by Novartis India Private Limited, Chennai. There was no medicine inside the speed post parcel. Thereafter, the respondent served a Notice on 06.06.2003 claiming a compensation of Rs.1,11,773/-. Petitioners entered appearance and filed their Written Statement. It was admitted that the speed post parcel did not contain any medicines. It contained only plastic flowers, leaves and a cash memo issued by Novartis India Private Limited, Chennai. It was submitted that the Postal Department or the Post Office is not concerned with the contents of the parcel and if the parcel contained valuable material, it should have been sent under insured post. In the event of loss of domestic speed post parcel or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation of Rs.1,000/- only could be paid to the sen