Adv. For the Complainant         : -  Ashok Kumar Sahu

        Adv. For the OP No. 1               :-   Self

        Adv . For the OP No. 2,3 & 4   :- Bhabani Shankar Satpathy

        Adv. For the OP No. 5               :-  Self

        Date  of filing of the Case        :- 01.07.2023

        Date of Order                             :-22.04.2024   

JUDGMENT

Smt. Jyotsna Rani Mishra , Member

Fact of the case in nutshell:-

       1. Case of the complainant as made out from her complaint petition in short is that she purchased one Sambalpuri  Saree from Shankar Meher (OP1) and paid a sum up Rs.5,180/- . Op1 received the amount through phone pay.  And sent the purchased Saree from his local post office, Bijepur (OP2) to complainant through Regd. Post on dt. 10.04.2023 vide – E0625646651N and dispatched the item to Bolangir Head post office (OP4) namely SPO, Bolangir , Head post , Bolangir . After Receiving the said Regd. Post from Sambalpur(OP3), the Op4 that is Bolangir SPO has not send the item to the complainant , nor he send back to the sender. So it is clearly ascertained that the Op4 has created the malafide intention in his mind and has not given any satisfactory answer to the complainant.

           That all the postal information has been collected by the complainant but she has not get her purchased goods and Ops are harassing her after repeated enquiry by her. Knowingly   the postal department creating mischief by the postal authority and the staff and also did not listening the complainant’s problem at all. And ultimately she had file the case and seeking refund of Rs.5,180/- towards the cost of Saree. She further prayed for compensation from OPS a sum of Rs.50,000/- and further prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

2. To substantiate her case the complainant relied on the following documents

       1. Photocopy of all messages and chatting.

       2. Postal Tracking report.

       3. Letter of Sambalpur  post to Bolangir post office.

3. Having gone through the complainant it’s accompanied and on hearing the complaint prima facie it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and noticed to the Ops were served and in response they appeared through their counsel and filed their version.        

4. In the rival contention to counter the allegation, the Ops denied the allegation made by complainant.

           (i) OP2, OP3, and OP4 comply that it is clear evident from booking particulars that article has not been booked by the complainant and she has not paid the amount to postal department. As such the complainant is not a consumer in the eyes of law as per Sec. 2 (7) of C.P. Act 2019.

         (ii) further as per the tracking detail of speed post No. E06256466751N it is evident that article sent to Bolangir and Bolangir ICH reported the article as “item lost”. The OPP. Parties  have neither any control over the same and nor has any jurisdiction over the transmission of mails done by Bolangir ICH , Bolangir . further Bolangir ICH comes under the administrative jurisdiction of superintend , Railway mail service, Jharsuguda k, division, jharsuguda, so no cause of action to file against the Op in this present form.

       Further OPP. Parties have no nexus with the alleged loss of the parcel of the complainant. So OP2 and OP4 are not the necessary / proper party to this proceedings.

     (iii) Article might have been lost in between Sambalpur (National Sorting Hub) and Bolangir (Intra Circle Hub) which does not comes under the purview of parties and as such , the OPP. Parties could not be held responsible for the alleged loss of parcel.

   (iv)  OPP parties have not received the article it is clear from article tracking report. So there was no role of OPP. Parties so the deficiency in service on part of OPP. Parties does not arise.

  (v)   Further , sec 30 under ch-VI of Indian postal office Act 1898 deals with insurance of postal Article, In this instant case, the complainant not assured the alleged lost Article for which she cannot claim the value of the said Article. So the complainant should not be entertained by this commission.         

(vi)  That the rule 66-B(5)of Indian post office Rules 1933 stipulates that in  case of delay in delivery of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the department of post time to time , the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charges paid. In the event of loss of domestic speed post Article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges or Rs.1,000/- which is less.

5.  OP5 in their written statement comply that parcel content has been dealt in Bolangir sorting (RMS Unit) which comes under the postal department. So the speed post Article bearing number E06256466751N was closed by NSH Sambalpur in speed post bag number EDF 5202380090 containing 51 article on 10.04.2023 for ICH Bolangir. The bag was received by Bolangir sorting S/S on 11.04.2023. The said Bag received on 11.04.2023 could not be opened and processed on the same day and thereafter for 6 days due to heavy receipt of bags in ICH Bolangir. Finally the said parcel bag was opened and processed on 17.04.2023. It was found that the number E0625646675IN was missing.

 Further Op5 submit that the complainant has not availed of insurance coverage over the said Article against the risk of probable loss or damage during the course of transmission from the office of booking to the delivery destination.

OP1 has no role to play at all in this incident.

In the view of above fact, circumstances and carefully gone through the evidence and written statement available on record I consider that

1. Complainant is a bonafide consumer under sec2(7)of consumer protection Act.2019. As per Act consumer means

1. Any person who buys and goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of differed payment and includes any beneficiary of such goods other than person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or under any system of differed payment. when such use is  
2.  

made with the approval of such person. So where there is consent, the approval must be there.

2. And hires or avails  of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary  of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the service for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person. Buys any goods includes offline or online transaction through electronic means. Complainant paid a sum of rupees through online to Op1.

2. There is a duty cast up on the postal authorities to deliver the consignment to the consignee in its time and original form to its having accepted the same after collecting the requisite charges for safe delivery but OPP. Party miserably failed to perform its duties properly. Some articles were found missing , when packed reached at its destination, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPP. Parties.
3. From the written statement of OP5 , it is clear that parcel content has been dealt in Bolangir sorting (RMS Unit) speed post article hearing number E06256466751N was closed by NSH Sambalpur in speed post bag number EDF5202380090 containing 51 articles on 10.04.2023 for ICH Bolangir. Bag was received by Bolangir sorting s/s on 11.04.2023 . finally parcel bag was opened and processed on 17.04.2023 . It was found that the article no. E0625646675IN was missing .

It is crystal clear ascertained that OP4 has created the malafide intention in his mind. knowingly the postal department of Bolangir creating mischief by the postal authority and the staff and did not listening the complainant problem at all. As such it must be comes under the purview of OPP. Parties 2 and 4 . so both are proper and necessary party to this proceedings and could be held responsible for the alleged loss of parcel.

4. Sec. 30 ch- vi of Indian post office Act. 1898 deals with Insurance of postal article. Postal article may subject to insured at the post office at which it is                  

Posted against the risk of loss or damage in course of transmission by post and that a receipt therefore shall be granted to the person posting it. In this case complainant does not insured the alleged article. Here question arises that how a customer know about the Rules , Regulation and different provision of post office to insured the article against the risk of loss or damage. It is the duty of postal Authorities or staff to insist the customer about provision of insurance of postal article. But OPP. Parties failed to perform its duties properly and article was lost. Which restoring unfair trade practice and deceptive trade practice and complainant march towards compensation.

In the above fact and circumstances I consider my view in favour of the complainant with the following directions.

                                 ORDER

Ops are directed to pay Rs.1000/- in the event of domestic speed post Article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges.

I further directed to OP4 to pay the cost of Rs.5,180/- and 20,000 towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses within one month from the dt. Of order.

Failing which the entire amount shall be paid by the Ops

@ 12 %interest per annum from the date of filing the case till realization.

 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TO-DAY 22^rd day of  April’ 2024.