J. N. Sarma, Member-This appeal is preferred by appellant Postmaster General, Assam Circle, against the award given by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cachar (for short, District Forum) on 29.1.94 in Complaint Case No. 1 of 1990. Respondent herein is late CP Nandi, who was the complainant in the original case in the District Forum. 2. To state briefly the facts of the case are as follows : On 14.9.89 the complainant (respondent herein) sent a letter numbered 979 dated 14.9.89 with valuable documents along with it by speed post from Silchar Head Post Office to his son Shri Joy Nandi (since deceased), a resident student at Telang Memorial Hostel, Church Gate, Bombay. On 28.9.89 the complainant came to know from his son that the said letter with valuable documents was not received by him although it was sent through Speed Post by paying Rs. 20/- only for delivery within 24 hours. This caused much hardship and inconvenience to his son, as a Bank Draft was said to have been enclosed with the letter. The complainant made inquiries in the Post Office at Silchar. In the meantime the letter was returned to the complainant. On 30.9.89 the complainant requested opposite party No.4 by his letter with copies to opposite parties Nos 2 and 3 to enquire into the cause of non delivery of the letter to the addressee. There was no response from the opposite parties, nor any inquiry was made. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the present complaint in the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with costs and other reliefs as admissible. 3. The opposite parties (appellant herein) contested the case and took the plea that the letter could not be delivered du to operational fault. Accordingly the Postal Department sanctioned refund of Rs. 20/- only to the complainant. Their contention was that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of Jay Nandi, who was a necessary party. The main contention of opposite parties is that their liability does not extend beyond what is stated in .section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. In their written additional objection filed before the District Forum it was stated that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act lays down that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. In their written additional objection filed before the District Forum it was stated that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act lays down that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. In view thereof it was pleaded that,- (1) The Consumer Protection Act does not supersede other enactment, and (2) The user of the postal service is not a hirer of a service as no consideration is paid. 4. After hearing both the parties and considering their pleadings the learned District Forum gave the impugned award of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation with cost of Rs. 4,000/- only and refund of Rs. 25.60 only to the complainant. The present appeal is against this award. 5. We have heard Shri GC Nath, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent. We have perused the Memorandum of Appeal and other relevant papers on record. Beside we have gone through the complaint, written version, oral testimony of witness recorded and the impugned award in the original case record. We have taken into consideration c the decision of National Commission and other State Commissions cited by learned counsel for both the parties. 6. It is needless to deal with the facts in this appeal as the learned District Forum discussed the facts in detail in their award. In fact the decision in this appeal hinges on the important law points raised by the appellant based on the section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and decisions of the National Commission thereon. The appellant relies mainly on the order of the National Commission in the Revision Petition Nos 175 and 247 of 1992 in the Presidency Post Master & another vs. Dr. U. Shankar Rao, reported in National Commission & SC on Consumer Cases 395 (NC). Besides the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to another order of the National Commission in Senior Post Master, GPO, Pune vs. Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat & another, reported in (1995) II CPJ 230 (NC). Apart from these two decisions the decision of the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 545 of 1994 reported in page 1911 (NC) of National Commission and SC on Consumer Cases has been brought to our notice. Both the parties have cited some decisions of other State Commissions. Apart from these two decisions the decision of the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 545 of 1994 reported in page 1911 (NC) of National Commission and SC on Consumer Cases has been brought to our notice. Both the parties have cited some decisions of other State Commissions. The decisions of Rajasthan State Commission, reported in (1995) HI CPJ 235 and National Commission, reported in (1993) III CPJ 308 (NC) cited by the learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable in the instant case as the same relate to the private couriers who are not protected by aforesaid provisions of Indian Post Office Act which is applicable to the Govt Post Offices only. In view of the law laid down by the National Commission we do not think it necessary to discuss other decisions of State S Commissions cited by the appellant. 7. In the aforesaid Revision Petition Nos 175 and 247 of 1992 in their decisions on 15th April, 1993, the National Commission while dealing with the provisions of section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, held as follows : "The services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability-There is no allegation that the loss, misdelivery or delay occurred on account of fraudulent or wilful act of any particular postal employee-Both the claim petitions not maintainable in view of section 6 of Indian Post Office Act-Both revision petitions accepted, (from Head notes)Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act lays down that the provisions of the Act are in addition to but not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This shows that the Act provides additional means of obtaining remedy by a consumer but if the remedy is barred under any other Act, then the various Forums constituted under the Act can not grant the remedy prayed for." (from Head notes). It would be appropriate to quote here the section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, which is applicable in the instant case. "6. The Govt. It would be appropriate to quote here the section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, which is applicable in the instant case. "6. The Govt. shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transaction by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken, by the Central Govt as hereinafter provided, and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the some fraudulently or by willful act or default." It is to be noted that there is no allegation of fraudulent, willful act or default on the part of any postal employee in the instant case. Neither in the compliant itself nor in his oral testimony the complainant did bring such an allegation. In view thereof the appellant is well protected by the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Post office Act. 8. In another Revision Petition No. 147 of 1994 decided on 8.3.1995, reported in (1995) II CPJ 239 (NC) National Commission held as follows : "Section 6 bars the claim of the complainant. There is no allegation that the article was lost by any fraudulent or wilful act or default of any of the official of the post office. Unless these are alleged and proved by the complainant, he is not entitled to claim relief by way of compensation for loss, misdelievery, or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of its transmission. Therefore, in the present case the complaint was liable to be dismissed." The principle laid down by the National Commission in the aforesaid two cases is applicable to the instant case as the facts and circumstances are more or less similar and particularly the issue for determination is the same. 9. The decisions of the National Commission in the aforesaid two revision petitions shall be regarded as settled law "on the subject unless, of course, the same are reversed by the Apex Court. District Forum and this Commission are bound by the said decisions. We find that the learned District Forum erred in law by not following these decisions of the National Commission. It is not known whether these decisions were cited or not by the appellant/opposite parties in the District Forum. District Forum and this Commission are bound by the said decisions. We find that the learned District Forum erred in law by not following these decisions of the National Commission. It is not known whether these decisions were cited or not by the appellant/opposite parties in the District Forum. In their written version, however, the opposite parties submitted that provision of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act was applicable in their case. But the District Forum in their order giving the award did not discuss about this aspect. In the context an observation of the National Commission in the Revision Petition No. 545 of 1994 decided on 16th January, 1996 (Chairman Board of Examinations, Madras vs. Mohideen Abdul Kedar) reported in NC and SC Consumer Cases 1411 (NC), cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, is very much pertinent and the same is quoted below : "State Commissions or District Forums not to disregard a decision of the National Commission. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums are quasi-judicial authorities and are thus governed by the well established principles of the binding nature of its own earlier decisions. The State Commissions and District Forums are subordinate to this Commission and are bound to follow the decisions of the superior Forums. It is sufficient for invoking rule of State DC is that a certain decision was arrived at on a question irrespective of the grounds or reasons of its decision - it does not belong to the State Commissions or District Forums to disregard a decision of the National Commission by applying to its label of per in curium." This observation makes it abundantly clear that we are bound by the aforesaid decisions of the National Commission. Learned District Forum erred in law in this respect as they might not have been aware of the decisions on the subject. 10. We, therefore find that the impugned Award of the District Forum suffers from infirmity and illegality and it is liable to be set aside. There is merit in the appeal. Appeal is allowed and the Award dated 29.1.94 of the District Forum in Consumer Case No. l of 1990 is set aside. In the result the complaint stands dismissed. In the circumstances we do not award any cost.