Despite multiple legislative overhauls aimed at empowering consumers in India, the ground reality remains starkly different. This article narrates my personal experience of being harassed and denied justice by a government-run postal service, despite the existence of the newly overhauled Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and platforms like the National Consumer Helpline (NCH) and e-Jagriti. It also raises questions about the continued misuse of colonial-era laws such as the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, especially Section 6. Needless to mention that section 2(9) of the consumer protection act, 2019 highlights six important key consumer rights including the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose, the right to be heard, the right to redress, and the right to consumer education. 

This write up is just for the sake of the last right of consumer that is consumer education.

Narrative of Case: The Mangoes That Never Reached

 On 27 June 2025, I booked a Speed Post parcel containing fresh mangoes from Malviya Nagar SO, Varanasi, for my daughter in Whitefield, Bangalore. I paid INR 566.67, trusting the Indian Postal Department’s assurance of 4-5 day (at max) delivery. After 1st July it the track consignment portal showed the same tracking. Having fear in my mind I started exhausting all available remedies right from speed post complaint to NCH to e-jagriti and finally on social media X. I received intimation only on social media after tagging PMO, Ministry of law and justice, consumer forum etc. The parcel was finally delivered after 13 days. But by then, the mangoes had spoiled beyond use—a rotting, leaking package that no longer resembled the gift I had carefully packed. What arrived was not just a box of waste, but a symbol of a system that failed at every level—delivery, redressal, and accountability reminding me what we used to teach in our classes that justice is meaningful only when it is timely,means “justice delayed is justice denied.

Proceedings followed

The consumer’s repeated emails, calls, and follow-ups with complaint numbers were met with silence or evasions. The only option left was to file a consumer complaint—not through a simple form, but via a convoluted and tech-heavy portal called e-Jagriti.

The Myth of Accessibility: NCH and e-Jagrit

1. 1915 Helpline: Disconnects. No follow-up SMS. Only showing in-process till date.

2. Email Support: Generic replies (if any). No tracking of grievance across platforms.

3. e-Jagriti (e-Daakhil):

- Demands scanned affidavit on stamp paper, notarized, even for a basic complaint.

- Requires uploading multiple PDFs, compressed under strict size limits.

- Asks for legal formatting equivalent to what lawyers use in courts.

For an elderly consumer or a person without legal help, thisis nothing short of digital exclusion masked as access.

 After getting exhausted if a consumer finally decides to lodge complaint under consumer protection act 2019, section 19 for deficiency of service and tries to go through the decided case law against postal department of India, it comes across with the Colonial Wall: Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898

Stating that “The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis delivery, delay or damage to a postal article in course of transmission by post, unless such liability has been undertaken by express agreement.” This clause—used by Indian courts even today—lets the Department escape accountability.

Judicial Tug-of-War: Section 6 and Consumer Rights

Courts in India have often leaned in favor of the Postal department under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. Yet, a few judgments have also nudged toward accountability.

Some key decisions include:

Department of Posts v. Raja Prameelamma, (1998) 9 SCC 706:

The Supreme Court held that unless there is fraud, willful act, or gross negligence, the Postal Department cannot be held liable for delayed or lost parcels.

Post Master General v. Balram Singh, (2014) 5 SCC 651:

The Court noted that statutory immunity does not override liability for gross deficiency in service, giving partial relief to the consumer.

Registrar of University v. S. P. Shivakumar, 2012 SCC onLine Mad 4567:

The candidate lost a job opportunity due to a delayedselection letter. The court still denied compensation, citing Section 6. These cases show the courts’ narrow interpretation of liability, often tilting toward the postal authority and leaving consumers remediless — evenwhen the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 clearly states under section 100 that it operates “in addition to and not in derogation of” other laws.

Everyday Humiliation of Consumers

It’s not just public departments; even small purchase reveal how deeply consumer disrespect is embedded in India’s marketplace. I once purchased a thermos flask from a local shop, intending to keep milk warm. One day,the milk curdled inside. I returned to the seller, seeking an explanation or replacement.

Their response? “Milk was hot na? That’s why it turned into paneer.” Even though the product worked technically,the purpose of keeping milk usable was defeated. This shows how consumer utility is ignored in favor of mere technical compliance.

Legal Contradiction: Consumer Protection vs. Postal Immunity

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines “deficiency in service” broadly. It includes both government and private entities, and intends to empower citizens. Yet,when courts cite Section 6, the Act’s spirit is crushed.This creates legal absurdity. A modern, progressive statute is being overridden by a colonial-era shield—contrary to constitutional principles of fairness, access to justice, and equality.

Law Must Serve the People, Not the System. India is actively repealing colonial laws through the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and other initiatives. Why then retain a law that defeats justice for consumers? It’stime the Indian Post Office Act, 1898—Especially section 6—is repealed or amended in line with modern consumer protection principles. The Consumer protection Act, 2019, must prevail where there is deficiency—irrespective of whether the service is private or public. A country trying to repeal 150colonial-era laws should not keep one that protects negligence at the cost of the people.

Call to Action

Parliament must review the Indian Post Office Act’s liability clause.

- The Consumer Affairs Ministry should simplify the e-Daakhil system.

- Civil society and consumer bodies must demand equal protection against public service failure.

Let my case be one among many that leads to real reform.

(Author is a law professor at Banaras Hindu University. Views are personal.)