- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 23.8.2006 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 17 of 2006. Vide the impugned order, the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 8,453 together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.4.2005 till the date of actual payment; Rs.5,000 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,500 towards litigation expenses.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Narpal Singh had sent a demand draft of 1600 pounds issued by Bank of Baroda by speed post from Ramnagar Post Office to his son who was studying at that time in Glasgow School in Scotland (U.K.). When the complainant was informed by his son that he had not received the post, he requested one of his friends in Scotland to deposit the fee. The friend agreed to it with the condition that she would charge interest on the amount. As a precautionary measure, the complainant got the said demand draft cancelled from the bank for which a cancellation fee of Rs. 100 was charged by the bank. The complainant received a lesser amount for 1600 pounds at the exchange rate prevailing that time. According to the complainant, at the time of issuance of the demand draft, the exchange rate was Rs. 82.96 per pound, but at the time of surrendering it, he was paid the amount @ Rs. 79.64 per pound. Thus, he suffered a total loss of Rs. 31,453, which include a loss of Rs. 5,312 due to change in exchange rate; Rs. 100 towards cancellation charges; Rs. 675 charged by the bank as commission for preparation of the demand draft and Rs. 25,000 paid by the complainant to his friend against interest. However, the postal department, offered an amount of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant, which he refused to accept. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital, which was decided by the District Forum vide its order dated 23.8.2006 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record in the light of the legal aspects of the case. The learned Counsel for the appellants referred to Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 and submitted that the provisions under this section provide immunity from any liability to the officials of the postal department if any postal article is lost, misdelivered, delayed or damaged in course of transmission unless it is proved that the official (or officials) had caused the same fraudulently or by wilful act or default. The learned Counsel further submitted that in such cases, the rules/regulations made under the said Act provide a compensation of Rs.1,000 which was offered to the complainant, but he refused to accept it. Thus, the appellants have not made any deficiency in service. The learned Counsel also argued that the Postal Department had no knowledge in respect of the contents of the speed post whether it contained a demand draft or some other document. The complainant has himself admitted that the said demand draft was encashed by him. Thus, no loss had incurred to him.;