West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/352/2015

Prasanta Chakraborty. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Dy. Superintendent , Kolkata Parcel Sorting - Opp.Party(s)

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _352_ OF ___2015_

 

DATE OF FILING : 30.7.2015                     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:   13/12/2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :     Sharmi Basu 

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT        :     Prasanta Chakraborty, 6, Avenue 2^nd Road, Santoshpur, Kolkata-75

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :    1. Dy. Superintendent, Kolkata Parcel Sorting, RLO Building, Kolkata-700 001.

                                                  2.   The Post Master, Santoshpur DSO, Kolkata – 700 075.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the allegation that he sent a packet containing new cloth (shirts, pant, sharee etc.) through registered parcel no. CW002454843 IN through Postmaster, Santoshpur DSO. Kolkata – 75 on 1.9.2014 ,to his son Sumanta Chakraborty in his address at Gurgaon. But till today the said parcel has not been delivered by the postal department. It is the further case of the complainant that he lodged complaint to the Deputy Superintendent, Kolkata Parcel  Sorting, RLO Building, Kolkata – 1 on 18.9.2014  and again on 30.9.2014 and talked over phone and met the personnel on several occasion. But the complainant was given only copies of letters issued by them to their link offices i.e. RMS “C” Division, GAXA Dt.14.10.2014 . Thereafter complainant also lodged complaint to the Post Master, Santoshpur DSO on 24.9.2014 and also handed over a copy stating the position that the same article had been delivered to PH Kolkata on 2.9.2014. Complainant also contacted the Asstt. Director, Public Grievance Cell on 20.10.2014 and 14.11.2014 but no information has been received from him. Thereafter he informed the matter to the Consumer Affairs Department, CA & FBP and attended the meeting on 10.3.2015 , even then no result comes out. Hence, this complaint for a direction to refund the amount of Rs.5500/- along with compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- and cost of litigation.

O.P nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the allegations leveled against them, but admitted that Registered Parcel no.CW002454843 IN was booked on 1.9.2014 by Santoshpur DSO which is under the administrative control of Sr. Superintendent of post Offices, South Kolkata Division. It has claimed that registered parcel was correctly dispatched to Kolkata RMS Parcel Hub on the same day for further transmission and Kolkata RMS Parcel Hub received the same on 2.9.2014 and vide Bag no. CBW0000803011 on 2.9.2014 . It was sent to Hariyana Parcel Hub by PH Kolkata RMS, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure II. It has stated that Deputy Superintendent, Kolkata RMS received the parcel and dispatched the Bag to Howrah RMS for onward transmission . It has also stated that Howrah RMS Parcel Department has dispatched the said Bag on 3.9.2014 . It has been admitted that AHRO Howrah RMS  reported to DS (HQ) Kolkata Air Foreign vide his letter dated 26.9.2015 that the said parcel bag was dispatched to P-30IN by MA Howrah/2 dated 3.9.2014. Accordingly, it has claimed that Santoshpur DSO already handed over the mail for RMS Howrah, so SSRM Howrah Division as well as the HRO, RMS Patna Division is to submit correct disposal fo the registered Parcel bag as well as the registered parcel before the ld. Forum. This the written version of the O.P nos. 1 and 2.

Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.ps or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

 

Admittedly complainant booked a parcel  through Post Master  , Santoshpur DSO for onward transmission to the address of his son at Gurgaon. O.P nos. 1 and 2 also admitted that the said parcel was booked and they have sent the same to the RMS Howrah who also sent the same to the Patna RMS and HRO, RMS Patna Division reported to the Deputy Superintendent , Kolkata Air Foreign vide his letter dated 8.10.2015 that the parcel bag which was prepared by Kolkata RMS Parcel Hub for Haryana was short received by PT-30IN and an error no.66 was noted. So, this bench wants to know why the O.Ps did not take any initiative or query to satisfy the complainant. Mere giving information ,the service is not completed. When the parcel was booked  for Gurgaon, we are aware that it is a continuous proceed i.e. Santoshpur DSO to Sealdah RMS to Howrah RMS, from that to Patna RMS and thereafter to the destination. But why the O.Ps after knowing the fact that the parcel which was booked from their end was lost by their department, did not take any steps. This is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of the postal department. The Central Government opened the branches of postal department for the convenience of the parties, so that parties can get services from the postal department to the nearest branch of their residence and complainant being a resident of Santoshpur rushed to Santosh DSO. So, there is no fault on the part of the complainant to seek service of nearest postal department but it is the postal department who did not feel the pain and suffering of the complainant  when complainant booked the garments for sending the same ,probably for the ensuing Puja Gift to his son and daughter in Law . But said desire was not fulfilled due to irresponsibility of the postal department. So, the O.P cannot save their skin by way that it is the Howrah RMS who is responsible for that since the said parcel is missing from RMS Howrah Division as reported by the RMS Patna Division.  But we find why this common people being the complainant will be suffered when the persons of the postal department are not giving services. It should be borne in mind that it is the duty of the O.Ps specially O.P-2 to take proper initiative by sending the messenger to Howrah RMS and find out the same. But inevitable did not happen. It is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant who is a senior citizen and even if he is not a senior citizen then also, the O.ps are solely responsible for that missing of parcel when it is an admitted fact and admission comes out from the written statement itself filed by the O.P nos. 1 and 2  in para no.5. So, we find that complainant should get justice when he has been able to prove that his parcel bag which was firstly sent by the O.P-2 to Kolkata RMS for Hariyana but short-received by PT 30IN of Patna RMS and error no.66 was noted and copy was forwarded to HRO West Bengal Division, Howrah through registered post on 7.10.2014 by the HRO RMS Patna Division.

It may be mentioned here that Howrah Division  is responsible for that , but we cannot burden the complainant when cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of South 24-parganas and it is a continuous cause of action. Thus it was the duty of the O.Ps to engage their machinery and arrange for getting the back the lost parcel or handing over the total parcel value. Accordingly, complainant has been able to prove his case.

Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost.

The O.Ps are hereby directed jointly and/or severally to refund Rs.5500/-   to the complainant  within 30 days from the date of this order ,failing which interest will carry @9% p.a on and from 1.9.2014 ( the date of booking the parcel) to till its realization.

The O.Ps are also directed jointly and/or severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing complainant is at liberty to recover the amount through execution case.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

 

                                                       Member                                                                President

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

                                                            Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost.

The O.Ps are hereby directed jointly and/or severally to refund Rs.5500/-   to the complainant  within 30 days from the date of this order ,failing which interest will carry @9% p.a on and from 1.9.2014 ( the date of booking the parcel) to till its realization.

The O.Ps are also directed jointly and/or severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing complainant is at liberty to recover the amount through execution case.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

 

                                                       Member                                                                President