Damaged goods? Onus to absolve on postal department

Blurb: The postal department has to prove that delayed delivery, misdelivery, loss or damage to the goods sent by speed post was not caused on account of fraud or wilful act or default on the part of the postal employees

Pushpa Girimaji

I sent some expensive clothes to my grandchild for her birthday via Speed Post. However, the packet that reached my daughter was open and had only one of the three dresses that I had sent. The post office, however, refused to refund the cost of the two missing dresses. Can I get compensation through the consumer court?

The department of Posts always claims immunity from liability for loss, misdelivery, delayed delivery or damage to the articles sent through Speed Post, by quoting Section 6 of the archaic Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The department also points to the Indian Post Office Rules to argue that they only pay as compensation for loss of article, pilferage or damage, double the speed post charge paid or Rs 1,000 whichever is less.

However, a recent decision of the apex consumer court, will help you in getting compensation. I do hope that you have the Speed Post receipt , specifying the number of dresses sent and also pictures of the tampered package and your daughter’s complaint to the post office.

Can you give details of this recent case?

To understand the significance of this judgement, you first need to know how the consumer courts have dealt with complaints pertaining to Speed Post in the past.

In fact for long, consumer tribunals did not give any relief against deficient services rendered vis-à-vis Speed Post, on the ground that the immunity provided under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act barred them from doing so. In Union of India Vs Puran Chandra Joshi (RP No 114 of 2005, order dated March 30, 2006) for example, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said the compensation cannot be more than what is statutorily fixed- refund of speed post charge- for delayed delivery.

However in Chief Post Master, Delhi, GPO Vs Ram Avtar Gupta ( RP No 1659 of 2000, Order dated June 1, 2006) the apex consumer court quoted the exceptions provided under Section 6 and said if the deficient service was caused on account of fraud, wilful act or default on the part of postal employees, then the statutory limit would not apply. Here, the air tickets sent by Speed Post were not delivered to the complainant and when his son went to collect them from the post office, the employees refused to give it because he could not meet their demand for payment of Rs 1000 or Rs 500 for handing over the packet! Holding this to be a wilful act, the National Commission awarded the cost of tickets, compensation and cost of litigation.

Then in 2011, in Post Master General, Kerala Vs Kiron Rasheed (RP No 781 of 2010) the National Commission upheld the view of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that provisions of a 100-year old law ( Indian Post Office Act, 1898) cannot be applied to modern forms of transmission such as Speed Post, email, money transfer, etc,

Now on January 10 this year, in Post Master, Post Office, Manimajra Vs Ripan Kumar (RP NO 2508 of 2016), the Commission held that Section 6 does not provide unquestionable immunity to the postal department and that the onus of establishing that the protection of Section 6 can be taken in a particular case was on the postal department.

In other words, the postal department has to prove that delayed delivery, misdelivery, loss or damage to the goods sent by speed post was not caused on account of fraud or wilful act or default on the part of the postal employees. In this case, the Commission pointed out that the department had not shown any evidence, through an inquiry held by it, that there was no fraud or wilful act or default on its part.

Here, medicines worth over Rs 29,000 sent by Speed Post had been tampered with and while some medicines were missing, some were damaged. Pointing out that “Condoning such attitude and mechanically applying the protection of Section 6” would “tantamount to this Commission granting carte blanche for inefficiency and deficiency without responsibility or accountability”, the Commission upheld the orders of the lower consumer courts directing the department to refund the cost of the medicines and in addition, pay Rs 20,000 towards compensation and cost of litigation.

The Commission also directed the department to pay Rs 1 lakh to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for filing a revision petition that was ‘patently misconceived and totally devoid of merit’, thereby wasting public money.