ORDER (Per : C.C. Pant, Member): This is postal department’s appeal against the order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 280 of 2006, Sh. Ramu Vs. Post Master, Head Post Office, Haridwar and another, directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 22/- towards registration charges; Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. It was further ordered that the complainant shall get the lost draft cancelled from the drawee bank and shall receive the amount thereof. 2. The facts of the case in brief, leading to the filing of the consumer complaint are that the complainant had sent a registered letter on 27.03.2006 to his father at parental village vide receipt No. 9747. As per the complaint, the registered envelope contained a bank draft for a sum of Rs. 12,500/- issued by Central Bank of India, Haridwar. The said registered envelope did not reach the addressee. When the complainant enquired from the postal department, he did not get any satisfactory reply. The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice through his counsel on 25.05.2006, which was not replied by the appellants. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the postal department to pay a sum of Rs. 22/- towards registration charges; Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the material on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Office 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, misdelivery 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 Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay of damage, unelss he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.” 7. Learned counsel argued that in the light of the aforesaid statutory provision, Post Office is exempt from any liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of any article in course of transmission by post, except to such extent as may be undertaken by the Government in express terms. An officer of the Post Office is similarly exempt from any liability unless and until, it is proved that the loss, misdelivery, delay or damage was caused by his fraudulent or wilful act or default. In the complainant’s case, it could not be proved that the registered letter was lost in transit due to any officer’s fraudulent or wilful act. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is in contradiction to the statutory provision. Learned counsel requested to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 8. None appeared on behalf of the complainant-respondent. 9. The letter was not an insured one and the complainant had not declared at the time of handing over the same to the post office that the envelope contained a bank draft of Rs. 12,500/-. Section 6 of the Post Office Act excludes those cases where the Central Government has undertaken any liability in express terms. In this reference, Rule 72 of the Indian Postal Rules needs a reading, which is as under: “72. (i) Registered letters, value payable registered letters, registered parcels and value payable registered parcels may be insured up to the value of Rs. 600/- at such branch post offices, and up to the value of Rs. 1,00,000/- at such other post offices, as may be authorised by the Postmaster General to accept articles for insurance and for such post offices as may be authorised by the Postmaster General to deliver insured articles: Note: Where currency notes are despatched by insured post the value shall not exceed Rs. 20,000/-. Provided that in no case shall such value exceed the real value of the contents of the article insured: Provided also that articles containing Government currency notes or bank notes or gold coin or bullion or gold ornaments or articles of gold any combination of these shall be insured for the actual value of the contents. (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (i), the insurance of all value payable articles on which the amount specified for recovery exceeds Rs. (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (i), the insurance of all value payable articles on which the amount specified for recovery exceeds Rs. 500/-, other than excepted articles, shall be compulsory for at least the amount specified for recovery from the addressee. Explanation – In this rule ‘excepted articles’ mean (a) value payable packet (b) .................................” 10. Thus, in the case of value payable parcels, liability can be fixed within the statutory provision, but in complainant’s case, neither it was declared at the time of handing over the letter that the letter contained a bank draft for Rs. 12,500/-, nor the registered letter was an insured one. The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 15 of 1997; Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana and others Vs. Sh. Vijay Rattan Aggarwal, Revision Petition No. 1006 of 2001; Union of India and others Vs. Brahma Dev Upadhyaya and Revision Petition No. 1035 of 2002; Varun Garg Vs. Assistant Post Master, Post Office and others, has laid down a guiding principle for Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, such agencies cannot go beyond the statutory provisions and cannot grant compensation more than that what is statutorily fixed. The Hon’ble National Commission has further said that a Consumer Forum is even bound by the terms of the contract howsoever oppressive these may be unless those terms are against public policy, illegal or void. 11. It is not disputed that the registered letter was not insured and no declaration regarding its contents was made by the complainant at the time of giving it to Post Office’s official. The complainant could not prove in the District Forum that the officials of the Post Office had acted fraudulently or willfully in registering, despatching or delivering the letter. Thus, the District Forum has erred in awarding the compensation and litigation expenses in view of the statutory provision and the principle laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in this regard. 12. However, while contesting the complaint before the District Forum, the appellants had referred to Section 172 of the Post Office Guide, Part I, wherein it is stipulated that in the case of loss or damage of any inland letter, packet or parcel or its contents during the transmission, concerned person can be compensated upto a limit of Rs. 100/- as a relief and not as a statutory responsibility. 13. 100/- as a relief and not as a statutory responsibility. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly. 14. Appeal is partly allowed. Order dated 27.12.2006 of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the Postal Department is directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 100/- together with costs of Rs. 1,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.