This dispute arises out of complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.
The facts disclosed in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant had sent a cheque by registered post with AD bearing NO-1861 dt-25.10.2012 to Sri Bikash Samal in the postal address “P-2-10801,Innovator, 6th floor ITPL, white field, Bangalore, 676, Karnatak but the said letter could not be delivered to the addressee nor returned to the sender (complainant) with postal remark. As the envelop of the Regd letter contains a cheque for an amount of Rs 4300/-, the same was urgently required to be delivered soon consuming the time it normally takes for delivery but unfortunately due to gross negligence of postal services, the said letter could not be delivered to the addressee nor returned to the sender with genuine postal remarks a result, the complainant faced trouble and sustained financial loss. Complainant intermittently pursued the postal authorities but failed to yield any positive result even after lodging written complainant before the superintendent of post office Bhadrak Division, Bhadrak who simply communicated 4.02.2013 expressing his view to intimate the developments to the complainant shortly. Waiting for a period of four months, complainant preferred this dispute before the forum for adjudication and praying for relief as mentioned in the complaint.
Opposite parties resisted the claim and contested the case. The Government pleader appeared on behalf of opposite parties and submitted written version stating that the case is not maintainable in consumer forum as because there is no cause of action against the opposite parties. It is submitted by the OPs that the disputed Registered Lette (R.L) was booked by the complainant at Kenduapada Branch post office under Barikpur Bazar sub-post office of Bhadrak Division addressing to Bikash Samal, ACS, innovator, ITPL, White failed, Bangalore, 560066. The said RL was allegedly not delivered to the addressee or not return back to the sender/complainant for which the sender/complainant submitted a complainant to OP No-1. On dt 25.10.2012 and basing on the complaint so made by the complainant, OP No-1 made a query over phone with sub-post office Barikpur and destination post office which did not yield any result. Later, OP No-1 booked a complaint on India post Web site on on 04.02.2013 which was responded by destination office quickly enquiring about the 13 digit bar code Number. Accordingly OP No-1 requested sub-post office, Barikpur Bazar to comply the query made by destination post office. More over OP No-1 also requested the complainant on dtd 22.10.2013 to submit complaint afresh through sub-post master, Barikpur Bazar sub-post office but since then the complainant did not make any correspondence with the OPs and kept silent over the problem/issue. Furthermore the Registered letter in dispute was not insured under the provisions of sec.33 of Indian post office Act 1898. Besides this, the complainant, having failed to submit complaint afresh as requested by OP No-1, is a defaulter in this case and hence the complainant does not have any cause of action against OPs and as the complainant has grossly failed to submit complaint afresh as desired by OP No-1 proves his negligence and hence does not amount to deficiency of service. Submitting as above and furnishing of the relevant provisions of Indian post office Act, 1898 along with decision of National consumer dispute redressal commission, OPs have requested the forum to dismiss the case with heavy cost as the complaint is devoid of merit.
On perusal of complaint and written version and making a threadbare analysis, this forum arrives at the conclusion that the following issues are involved for discussion and to draw a conclusion.
1. Whether opposite parties are negligent in providing proper service to the complainant.
2. Has the complainant failed to act upon according to the request of OPs for submission of complaint afresh.
3. Is the forum competent to pass an order in derogation with relevant provisions of Indian post office Act 1998.
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the cheque amount due to non-delivery of R.L. to the complainant R.L.to the addressee.
5. Whether the decision of N.C cited by OP is appropriate/ relevant in respect of present case.
1. On the question maintainability of the present dispute in the consumer forum, OPs submitted that the Indian post office Act-1898 is a statute, the provisions laid down their in cannot be ignored. Furthermore OPs also raised/cited the provisions of C.P. Act, 1986 in terms of section-3 it has been made specific as “In additions to but not in derogation of the provisions of any other Act or law”. Thus the C.P. Act provides additional means of obtaining remedy by a consumer but if the remedy is barred by any other Act, then the consumer forums cannot grant remedy prayed for. As it is specifically mentioned in sec.6 of Indian post office Act, 1898 as “The Govt shall not incur any liability by reason of loss….. unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default”. Hence the postal authorities shall not be held liable for misdelivery or non-delivery of the R.L. in question. On the contrary complainant submitted that due to non-delivery of the R.L. Containing a cheque of Rs 4300/-, the addressee suffered financially for which the OPs are defiant in providing required service and also liable to pay the cheque amount. Perused the materials on record and heard the submissions of parties during hearing and argument of the case and arrived at the conclusion that the OPs are not negligent in providing proper service, rather the complainant has failed to act upon the intimation issued by OPs on dt 22.02.2013. Had complainant submitted complaint afresh through SPM, Barikpur Bazar sub-post office this dispute could have been resolved within a short span of time. Hence the complainant is found negligent for the reason of not complying and not acting upon the letter issued by OPs on 22.02.2013.
2. OPs objected against the complainant to have not acted upon according to the intimation issued by postal superintendent of post office, Bhadrak Division (OP No-1)on dt 22.02.2013 to submit complaint afresh through SPM,SPO, Barikpur Bazar which could have paved the way to resolve the problem within a short span of time but the complainant did not respond the intimation so issued nor did issue any reminder which left an impression as to the complainant has no complain or not interested to proceed with the issue. Awaiting an action, from the complainant side, OPs presumed the complainant to have no interest to proceed with the allegation. As such the OPs also kept silent till filing of this dispute. On the other hand complainant admitted in course of hearing, to have received the intimation issued on dt -22.02.2013 but being aggrieved enough, did not take any step to submit complaint afresh. On perusal of materials on record it is found that the complainant has failed to comply the contents of intimation letter and therefore, he was found negligent on this issue.
3. As raised by OPs on the question of maintainability, complainant submitted that the case would be admitted, adjudicated under the provisions of sec-12 &13 of CP Act which is vehemently opposed by the OPs in stating that Indian post office Act, 1898,which has been enacted about 90 years before the enactment of consumer protection Act, 1986. Therefore provisions of an age old statute cannot be neglected as preserived in sec-3 of CP Act. Section 3 of CP. Act speaks as “the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”. This matter in dispute had been referred to dispute settlement committee in the year 2000 and it was decided by the committee as “further complaint in the matter before District consumer forum is not maintainable”. Accordingly, in a case between post master General Sambalpur and three others Vrs. Smt. Annapurna Nath, the state consumer dispute Redressal Commission in year 1998 which has been reported in OLR 1998(1) CSR (15) supporting the cause of postal Authorities. Hence it is held that the provisions of post office act,1898 cannot be ignored and no order can be passed by this forum in derogation of the above mentioned provision of Indian Post office Act 1898.
4. Complainant in his complaint has prayed to direct the OPs to pay the cheque amount of Rs 4300/- together with interest @18% with effect from 30.10.2012 for gross negligence of the OPs resulting financial sufferings for the complainant. OPs objected in stating that the complainant has failed to justify his financial sufferings and how non-delivery of a letter caused lass to him. Secondly the complainant has failed to prove that the R.L. in question contained a cheque worth of Rs 4300/-. In addition to that, had the complainant acted upon in the procedure mentioned in the intimation letter issued on 22.02.13 by OPs, the question of payment of cheque amount together with interest would have been viewed in a lenient manner or would have been taken to consideration whether to pay not or not. But in the present case complainant has Kept himself silent after filing a petition before OP No-1 on 04.02.2013 and did not respond to subsequent correspondence made by OPs. On perusal of materials on record and submission made in course of hearing by the parties it is held that the complainant has neglected to act upon according to the contents of letter dt-22.02.13 and failed to prove his claim for cheque amount and does not deserve to get the claim.
5. OPs during hearing and argument have drawn the attention of the forum to the decision of National consumer dispute redressal commission in Revision petition No-986 of 1996, disposed of in 1999 wherein it is held that the provisions of sec. 6 of Indian post office Act, 1898 shall prevail in the matter of non-delivery of any letter, whether registered or ordinary, and the departmental authorities shall not be held liable in any manner for compensating loss. Hence the decision submitted/cited by the OPs is found relevant and befitting to the case in hand.
Taking the facts and discussions made in the fore going paragraphs in to considerations it is concluded that this case does not bear any merit to hold the postal Authorities negligent and shall not be held liable for any loss or damage. Hence it is ordered.
Order
The complainant be and the same is dismissed without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open forum on this 20th day of July -2017 under my hand and seal of the forum.
