JUDGMENT :

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award/order dated 30.09.2014, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Moradabad awarding compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,500/-each to the applicants in Application No. 153 of 2013 on account of loss of the articles sent by speed-post by the complainants which contained their passports and demand drafts.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1898), the Postal Department enjoys immunity with regard to any liability arising out of any loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of any postal article in the course of its transmission. She further adds that the Permanent Lok Adalat can not entertain an application for award against the Postal Department in light of the immunity of the Postal Department as provided under Section 6 of the Act, 1898. Counsel for petitioner has also relied upon judgments of this Court in the cases of (i) unreported judgment dated 05.04.2011 in Writ-A No.-17240 of 2011; Dr. Shri Dev Mishra vs. State of U.P. And Others, (ii) unreported judgment dated 09.02.2019 in Writ-A No.-387 of 2015; Ram Dhari Yadav and Ors vs. State of U.P. And Anr, and (iii) A reported judgment dated 13.08.2010 by a full bench of this Court in the case of Neena Chaturvedi vs. Public Service Commission reported in (2011) 1 All LJ 382.

3. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with her assistance.

4. The judgments of this Court relied upon by the petitioner do not apply to the facts of this petition. The judgments in the case of Dr. Shri Dev Mishra (Supra) and Ram Dhari Yadav (Supra) relate to whether relief could be granted to petitioners who sent their applications through India Post, but due to delay their applications could not reach in time to the recruitment body and therefore their prayer was that the respondents should admit their applications even after a delay. Both these judgments have relied upon the full bench judgment of Neena Chaturvedi (Supra), which is also relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the present petition. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Neena Chaturvedi (Supra) was deciding upon the issue whether the post office acts as an agent of the sender or the receiver. The relevant paragraph 5 of the Neena Chaturvedi (Supra) where the Full Bench formulated the question of reference is as follows:

"5. The question that can be formulated for consideration would be "when applications are invited, one through post office and the other by any other means or only through post, does the post office become the agent of the addressee, because there is express or implied authorisation by the addressee to send the articles by post."

In its judgment, the Full Bench has not settled whether the protection from liability of the post office extends to all the activities carried on by it apart from the regular post. Therefore, for the issues involved in this petition, the law settled in Neena Chaturvedi (Supra) has no applicability.

5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Postal Department enjoys immunity from any liability in light of immunity under Section 6 of the Act, 1898, which reads as under:

"6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, 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 in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the 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 willful act or default."

He submits that it protects the Government and the Officers of the Post Office from any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery or delays for damage to any postal article