IN THE COURT OF 

 

             SRI. S. DEO SINGH

                   PRESIDENT

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

                            &

             Sri Hiralal Debbarma

                 (Member)

                       &

             Smt. Dipali Sinha

                  (Member)

 

              CASE NO. 01 CC KMP  OF 2019

 

        Smt. Sudipta Malakar 

        D/O Sri Ranjit Malakar

        Resident of Kamalpur, P.O- Kamalpur, 

        P.S- Kamalpur, District- Dhalai  Tripura. 

                                                                                      ..................Complainant                                

 

 

     1). The Sub-Post Master, 

    Kamalpur Sub- Post Office,

          Kamalpur, Dist- Dhalai Tripura.

 

       2). The Superintendent  of Post Office,

             Dharmanagar Postal Division,

             Dharmanagar- 799250.

 

       3). The Chief Post Master General, 

             North Eastern Circle, Shillong-793001.

 

       4). The Sub Post Master,

             Santiniketan Sub Post Office,

             Santiniketan- SO731235.

 

       5). The Chief Post Master General,

             West Bengal Postal Circle.

 

       6). The Secretary,

             Dept. of Post, Govt. of India,

             Dept. of Post, Dak Bhawan,

             New Delhi.          

                                                                            .............. Opposite Parties.

             

 

 

         Counsel for the Petitioner    :   Smt. Tapti Deb   ...........Ld. Advocate.

         Counsel for the OPs      :   Mr. Shyamal Kanti Paul & Mr. Subrata Debnath............ Ld. Advocates.

 

     

  Date of institution of the case                  :  29.04.2019.

 

 

 

1. This instant case was instituted on the basis of complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by one Smt. Sudipta Malakar.

 

2. The complainant case in short is that the complainant having being indulge in small business of making flower vase, wall hanging, ladies ornament, bags, sarees, painting etc. at her home, has to purchase some materials from Santiniketan and as such on 28/03/2019, the Complainant booked one parcel consists of Butik Saree, Punjabi for men, bag made by thread, leather bag, some wooden & metal articles bearing registered Parcel No. CW073951951IN of 19540 grams from Santiniketan Post Office to Kamalpur Sub-Post Office. Further the case of the Complainant is that on 05/04/2019 she was informed by Kamalpur Sub Post Office to collect the said parcel and at the time of collecting it, the parcel was not as it was when dispatched from Santiniketan Post Office. Thereafter the Complainant requested the postal authority to weight the parcel and Complainant got surprised after it weight. It was measuring around 9680 grams instead of its actual weight 19540 grams. Thereafter Complainant refused to accept the same. It is further case of the complainant is that i.e. 08/04/2019 she went to Kamalpur Sub Post Office alongwith three (03) witnesses and on opening the parcel infront of them, she found old cloth, toys, cover of vehicle lying inside the parcel.

Being dissatisfied and aggrieved with the service of Ops, the Complainant filed this Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claming return of value of articles, postal charges, interest, cost of litigation apart from compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.

 

3. On the other hand, Ops also appeared and contested the suit by way of filing written reply. In the written reply the OP No-1 stated that the present complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable in the  present form and nature. It is stated by Op  No-1 that Kamalpur Sub Post Office has not realized any charges/fees from the Complainant for any service related to registered parcel being No. CW073951951IN and such any proceeding/complaint against Sub-Post office Kamalpur is barred    U/S 2(1)(d) and U/S 2(1)(aa) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Passed in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

Further it is contended by the Op No-1 that the Complainant if having any grievance relating to parcel being No. CW073951951IN should have to approach the booking Post Office which is in the instant case is Santiniketan (West Bengal Circle). However it is admitted that complainant visited Kamalpur S.O. on 05/04/2019 and after inspecting the outer condition of the parcel, she wanted to take the weight of the parcel which was done immediately in presence of the Complainant and was found to be 9680 grams. Complainant informed that the actual weight of the parcel was 19540 grams at the time of booking. It is further contended by the OP No.1 that the OP No.1 immediately reported the matter to Superintendent of Post Offices, Dharmanagar Division, Dharmanagar and Sub Record Office/Agartala Sorting. It is also contended by Op No.1 that on 08/04/2019 he prepared inventory of the items found inside the parcel and he delivered the parcel to the complainant which was received by Kamalpur Sub Post office. It is further stated by Op No.1 that he has already informed the complainant about the procedure for making claim for compensation if any at the booking post office [i.e. Santiniketan S.O-731235], at the time of delivery of the parcel to the complainant  on 08/04/2019. The OP has also further informed the complainant that she would be extended with all possible assistances as admissible to the addressee of a postal Article,  so that she can effectively present her claim at the booking post office. In this direction, the OP has already made a report regarding the case to the Supdt. of Post Offices, Dharmanagar Postal Division on 05/04/2018 and again on 08/04/2019. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Dharmanagar Postal Division too has already ordered for a detailed investigation into the case by the Inspector of Posts, Teliamura Sub Division is under progress. A Web complaint has also been registered under No. 79910003882 dated 09/04/2019 and the complainant has been informed about the fact of registration of her complaint and fact of initiation of detailed investigation etc., through letter No. CCC/DNR/CW073951951IN/2019 dated 09/04/2019.

It is further contended by the OP No.1 that the registered parcel was uninsured and the complainant is not eligible for any compensation as per section 33 of India Post Office Act, 1898. He further relies upon Section 6 of India Post Office Act, 1898 and lastly contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Further after impleadment of   necessary opposite parties  i.e. OP No 2 to 6  by the complainant, the OP Nos 2 to 6 again submitted written reply and asserted the version what has been already Submitted by OP No. 1 in the written statement.

 

4. ISSUES/POINTS TO BE DETERMINED

 

On 08.11.2019 the Ld. predecessor framed  following issues for determination which are as follows:-

i)  Whether the complaint  is maintainable in its present form      or  nature ?

ii)  Whether  the Complainant Sudipta Malakar suffered     financial loss due to deficiency in service on the part of                  the Ops?

iii)  Whether the parcel of complainant Sudipta Malakar opened at Kamalpur on 05/04/2019 was not in proper shape?

 

iv) Whether the total value of articles which the complainant sent by post on 28/03/2019 from Santiniketan Sub Post Office to Kamalpur Sub Post Office is Rs. 60,000/- alongwith shipping charge and postal charge of Rs. 665/-?

 

v)  Whether the Postal Authorities/the opposite parties are responsible for deficiency in service?

 

vi) Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation/ payment of damages for deficiency in service and if so what should be the quantum of compensation?

 

5. Evidence adduced by the parties:-

Complainant examined herself as PW1 and produced one witness namely Malay Chakraborty who was examined as PW2 and the witness were accordingly cross examined. She submitted some documents which were marked as Exhibit which are as follows-

Exhibit 1- Voucher No. 766, dated 21/03/2019

Exhibit 2- Voucher No. 609, dated 22/03/2019

Exhibit 3- Cash Voucher of Rs. 6,808/- dated 22/03/2019.

Exhibit 4- Cash Voucher No. 858 for Rs. 6,940/- 

Exhibit 5- Receipt of parcel bearing No. CW073951951IN dated 28/03/2019.

Exhibit 6- Inventory dated 17.02.2020 by PW-1.

Exhibit 7- Inventory dated 03.03.2020 by PW-2.

 

6.                 Argument

The complainant filed written argument on 28/01/2021 and  on the other hand the Ld. Advocate for the OP concluded argument  on 15/12/2021.

 

7 . DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

 

Before going to decide other issue or issues separately or simultaneously, it is necessary to decide Issue No. 1. Hence Issue No.1 is taken up for discussion and decision.

We have gone through the pleadings of both parties.  Complainant in her complaint as well as examination in chief on affidavit specifically stated that on 28/03/2019 she booked a parcel vide its consignment no. CW073951951IN from Santiniketan Sub Post Office for its destination at Kamalpur Sub Post Office in the name of herself.  Complainant stated that at present she is residing under the jurisdiction of this Forum and the O.Ps have also its office at Kamalpur and as such this Forum has jurisdiction to try the instant case. In this regard I may refer to the provision of Section 11 of the C.P. Act, 1986. Sub Section-2 of Section 11 specifically deals with the matter about the territorial jurisdiction and I am reproducing the said provision of Section 11(2) which is as follows:-

'A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution, or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.'

 

8. As per above provision we find that the residence of the complainant is not a matter to be considered or looked into but Sub Section -2 (clause-b) provides that taking permission from the District Forum if there is any Branch office or any of the OPs carries on business. In the instant case complainant did not seek any permission of the District Forum for institution of the complaint under the jurisdiction of this Forum which ought to have been sought. However, the Ops appeared in the instant case by collective acquiescence and submitted written reply. So under the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Forum is of the opinion  that the complaint petition is not barred under the law.

 

 

9. During evidence PW-1 examined herself and also examined one Malay Chakraborty as PW-2 and submitted some original documents which has been marked exhibit accordingly. PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed what has been stated by her in her complaint petition. During cross-examination she admitted that she had not submitted the list of contents of parcel and even it was not insured. PW-2, Malay Chakraborty in his examination-in-chief stated that on 08.04.2019 at the request of PW-1 he went to Kamalpur Sub-Post Office where inventory was done by Sub-Postmaster and he put his signature. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not see the article which were packed by PW-1 and even he do not know the number of parcel. He further deposed that he did not see the article at the time of packing of parcel by PW-1. 

 

10. Before going to appreciate evidence adduced by the complainant, we have to decide the matter further on maintainability ground as framed in Issue No.1. Now we will decide whether O.Ps are exempted from any liability U/S 6 of the India Post Office Act, 1898. Section-6 of the India Post Office Act, 1898 states as follows:- ''Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage - the (Government) shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.''

We have gone through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which is decided in Revision Petition No- 986 of 1996 by a larger bench and subsequently in the following cases:-

1. 2002 SCC Online NCDRC 38 ; [2002] NCDRC 38.  

2. 2012 SCC Online NCDRC 192 : [2012] NCDRC 192 ;             (2012) 2 CPJ 427 (NC) ; (2012) 2 CPR 338 (NC),

3. 2018 SCC Online NCDRC 1199

4. 2018 SCC Online NCDRC 1806.

In all of the above Judgment  it was held that the law is well settled by a long line of decisions of the English Courts, the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts as well as the National Commission itself, that Section- 6 gives complete immunity to the Government and its employees except in the case specified therein. We see no reason to depart from this well established principles. In our view this decision is clearly applicable in the instant case. So, we are in the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable in law. Accordingly we decide the issue no. 1 in the negative. Though the complainant is entitled to receive compensation to the extent of double the amount of  speed post charges or Rs. 1000/- whenever is less under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act read with Rules 66B of India Post Office Rules, 1933.

 

 

11. ISSUE NO. 2 , 3, 4, 5 & 6:-

In view of the decisions arrived at issue no. 1, there is no necessity to decide these remaining issues.

 

12. O-R-D-E-R

 

In view of the decisions arrived at issue no.1, we are in the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. Hence, the complaint is dismissed without cost. However, the OPs are directed to remit the double of Speed Post/Registered Post charges of parcel to the complainant with interest of 12% per-annum from the date of filling of this complaint petition. 

 

13. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of costs.

 

14. Thus, the case is accordingly disposed of on contest.

 

15. Make necessary entry in the T/R.

 

 

 

 

                                   _A_N_N_O_U_N_C_E_D_

         

 Typed to my dictation 

  and corrected by me.

 

 

 

                (S. Deo Singh)

                    President

      District Consumer Disputes

      Redressal Forum, Kamalpur 

 

 

 

                                                                                                              (S. Deo Singh)

                                                                                                                   President

                                                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                               Redressal Forum, Kamalpur 

         

           (Sri H. Debbarma)

                    Member

      District Consumer Disputes

      Redressal Forum, Kamalpur 

 

 

 

 

               (Smt. D. Sinha)

                    Member

      District Consumer Disputes

      Redressal Forum, Kamalpur