PRESIDENT

                       DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

                           KAMALPUR, DHALAI TRIPURA

&

Smt. Subadra Sen

(Member)

 

 

                  Sri Sanjiv Kumar Kairi 

            S/O Lt. Shewdhari Kairi

                                Resident of Marachara, P.S- Kamalpur,

                                Kamalpur Sub-Division, Dist- Dhalai  Tripura.

 

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

                                           

 

     1). The Sub-Post Master, 

    Kamalpur Sub- Post Office,

          Kamalpur, Dist- Dhalai Tripura.

 

       2). Superintendent  of Post Office

            Dharmanagar Postal Division,

            Dharmanagar- 799250.

 

       3). Chief Post Master General, 

             North Post Circle, Shillong-7930010.

 

       4). Department of Post Office.

            Represented by the Secretary to the

            Govt of India, dept of Post 

            Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

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

 

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

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

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

                                                                                                ................ Ld. Advocates.

     

    Date of institution of this case                 :    12.06.2019.

Date of hearing  argument                   :    16.09.2021. 

  Date of pronouncement of Judgment     :    23.09.2021.

 

 

 

1. This instant case was instituted on the basis of complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by one Sri Sanjib Kumar Kairi.

 

2. The complainant case in short is that the complainant being 80% handicapped and a resident of Vill-Marachara, Kamalpur, Dhalai District used to maintain his family by making wooden furniture by use of electric machine. The Complainant purchased 1(One) electric machine from on-line shopping site and he found the machine defective.  Subsequently he contacted with office of the on-line shopping site where they assured him to return back the money of the said electronic machine if he resent the product to the company. Accordingly the complainant on 22/04/2019 sent the product i.e the said electric machine through Kamalpur Sub Post Office to Bestow Enterprises, 1012, Aurangabad, Jagir, Lacknow, Pin-226023 by Speed Post by paying postal charges of Rs. 425/- (Rupees four hundred twenty five only).

Further case of the complainant is that without Sending POD No i.e proof of delivery number to On-line Shopping Company, he will not get return of his money of the said product. So on 06.06.2019, the complainant by his letter requested the respondent Op No.1 to provide him the POD but the respondent did not make any action nor given any information regarding the POD. Due to deficiency in service by the postal authority, the petitioner could not purchase new machine as well as he could not continued his business for which he had to face a monitory losses of Rs. 40,000/- to 50,000/-.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the actions of the OPs, the complainant  filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, trouble, loss of business & mental agony. The complainant also Claims for value of article & postal charges, interest from the date of delivery and cost of present proceeding.

 

3. On the other hand, Op No-1 appeared in the case and on 17/06/2019 submitted W/S. The OP No.1 disputed the cause title of the complainant’s petition and contended that there  is no cause of action for filing of the said complaint. The OP No.1 insisted upon impleadment  of necessary party i.e Govt of India which is mandatory under Order XXVII Rule 5A of the CPC, 1908. It is admitted by OP in his w/s that the complainant booked article by Speed Post being consignment No. 437828533IN through Kamalpur Sub-Post office on 22/04/2019 and it was correctly dispatched to addressee Bestow Enterprises, 1012, Aurangabad Jagir, Lucknow, Pin- 226023 as per prescribed mode of dispatch. It is further stated by the OP No-1 in his w/s that on 06.06.2019 the complainant made a complaint to his office to know the date of delivery and accordingly it was sent to Superintendent of Post Office, Dharmanagar Postal Division and the said Postal Division registered a complainant case on 14/6/2019. The OP No.1 further stated that as per their existing departmental instruction, customer complaint which does not require any investigation has to be settled within 60 days from the date of complaint. So as per OP no-1, the complainant´s complaint is premature and he filed the case without waiting  for 60 days of time limit. It is further stated by Op no-1 that the complainant filed the complaint before postal authority after expiry of 30 days i.e after expiry of time limit for making any complainant and the OP in the public interest entertained the complaint of the customer but unfortunately the customer filed this case prematurely and without any cause of action.

  As per OP No-1, the cause of action will arose only after expiry of 2 month from the date of complaint i.e. on and after 06.08.2019. It is further stated by OP No.1 that the actual delivery of any postal article to the addressee after the article is received at the destination post office is subject to availability of addressee & the acceptance of delivery by the addressee. It is again stated by OP No.1 that the said article reached the destination post office on 27/04/2019 as reflected from official website www.indiapost.gov.in but delivery details are not reflected therein which may be owing to some technical  reason so the delivery details can be ascertained only through postal communication with the office of delivery post office and they have already initiated the said process after getting complaint of the customer on 06/06/2021. The OP lastly prays for dismissal of the complaint petition with cost.

 

4. The OP No.1, on 26/7/2019, submitted the receipt copy of delivery wherein it has been shown that the parcel booked has been delivered to the destination.

 

5. Thereafter the complainant filed amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 dated 02.08.2019 and accordingly after its formal admission, the amended Complaint was submitted incorporating the OP Nos. 2,  3 & 4 apart from correcting the name and designation of the OP No- 1.

Thereafter on 30.10.2019 the Ld Advocate Subrata Debnath submitted w/s on behalf of the Op no 1, 2, 3 & 4 inter-alia denying and disputing  the contention of complainant as alleged in the amended complaint except booking of consignment by the complainant dated 22.04.2019.. It is stated in W/S that there is no cause of action for the arising of said complaint. The booked Parcel was already reached to its destination on 27/04/2019 and the customer can itself track through web portal of the postal department by entering  its consignment number and hence prays for dismissal of complaint in limine.

 

6. ISSUES/POINTS TO BE DETERMINED

 

On 05.11.2019 the Ld predecessor framed  following issues for determination which are as follows:-

i)  Whether the complaint filed by Sri Sanjib Kumar Kairi is      maintainable in its present from or not?

ii)  Whether Complainant sent one electric machine by parcel      from Kamalpur Sub-Post Office by Speed post on    22/04/2019  to Bestow Enterprises, 1012, Aurangabad,                Jagir, Lucknow Pin-226023?

iii)  Whether the OPs (Postal of authority) failed to 

                 send the parcel and also failed to give POD No to 

                           the complainant.

iv) Whether the OPs are responsible for deficiency

                in service & whether the OPs are liable 

                          to pay damage?

v)  Whether the complaint is entitled to compensation/     

                          damages for monetary loss of Rs. 40,000 to 50,000/-?

 

7. Evidence of the parties:- The complainant examined himself as pw-1. He submitted examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. He filed original copy of receipt of parcel dated 22/04/2019 bearing Speed Post Consignment No- EE43782833IN which was marked as Exhibit -1. The OPs did not adduce any evidence on their behalf during hearing.

 

8.                        Argument

The complainant filed written argument on 25/3/2021, on the other hand the Ld Advocate for the OPs concluded argument  on 16.09.2021.

 

9. DECISION & REASON OF DECISION

All the points are taken together for discussion & decision.

 

We have gone through the pleading  of both parties. There is no dispute as to the facts averred by the complainant in his W/S as well as examination-in-chief and written argument that he booked a parcel by speed post bearing No. 437828533IN dated 22.04.2019 in favour of Bestow Enterprises 1012, Aurangabad Jagir, Lucknow, Pin- 226023. The OPs admitted those facts in their  W/S  as well as  during argument.

 

There is no dispute as to jurisdiction of the complaint case by the OPs.

 

Further it is shocking and surprising that the complainant  did not disclose the facts about the delivery of parcel by himself. However, during his cross-examination he stated that the parcel was received by the addressee. Moreover, I would like to refer the relevant  provision of section  6 of India Post Office Act, which runs as follows:-

Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery  delay or damage:- The government shall not incur any liability by reason of those misdelivery or delay of or  damage of any postal articles in course of transmission by Post except in so far as such liability may in express term be undertake by the central govt. as hereinafter provided and no officer of the post office shall incur liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently  or by his willful act or default.

 

Now, the point for consideration is that whether the postal authority were negligent in service by not providing POD to the complainant?

 

No doubt, it is in practices and procedure to accept the contents of Track Report which is generally available from the web portal of the postal authority. At the same time we cannot fully eliminate the technical problem which suddenly arose in the technological field. The complainant approached the postal authority on 06.06.2019 for delivery report when he failed to find it. The postal authority as per their guidelines referred the matter to Dharmanagar Post Office and after getting information, submitted the copy of delivery to this forum on 27.06.2019, wherein it has been found that postal article being consignment No.  437828533IN was delivered to the  Bestow Company on 27.04.2019.

 

Further it is found on record that the OPs have to dispose of complaint within 60 days unless there is any requirement of investigation.

 

Further, I would like to reproduced the cross-examination of the complainant which are runs as follows:-

¨Cross-examination by defence::

I have not insured the parcel sent by me to Bestow Enterprises, 1012 Aurangabad, Jagir Lucknow, PIN-226023 by speed post. I filed the case alleging that my speed post item was not delivered. W/V:- I did not receive OTP number due to fault of postal authority. The OTP number is generated upon delivery of the article. 

It is not a fact that  there is nothing like OTP in the postal department. 

I have submitted a letter to the postal authority for giving me proof of delivery of the item. I have submitted copy of receipt of my letter to postal department, before the Forum. Subsequently I got  the proof of delivery from the postal department and I conveyed the number to Bestow Enterprises, and they have then the money was paid to my account. So I have obtained relief of my grievance. 

It is not a fact that postal department gave me the POD in time. It is not a fact that there was no deficiency in service caused by postal department.

After getting the proof of delivery I found that my item was delivered on 27.04.2019, after sending the parcel on 22.04.2019.

It is not a fact that my item was not properly delivered by postal authority. It is not a fact that  I have filed this case for harassing the postal department.¨ 

 

The complainant himself deposed that he obtained relief of his grievance as evident from his cross-examination.

 

The general rule is that as and when any person comes forward with a complaint alleging the practice of deficiency in service on any officer of the post office or postal department in question must have to prove the same in order to make them liable.

 

In view of our aforesaid discussion the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is not proved on record and on the contrary they acted as per their general procedure. The OPs are in no way caused suffering to this complaint.

 

 

After consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, pleading and the submission of both the parties, we inclined that this complaint petition is not maintainable and devoid of merits.

 

10. Hence, it is

        that, the complaint petition of the complainant is hereby stands dismissed without cost.

 

11. Thus, the instant case is accordingly disposed of on contest.

 

12. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of cost.

 

13. Make necessary entry in the trial register.

 

           Typed to my dictation 

              and corrected by me.

 

 

 

                (S. Deo Singh)                          (Smt. S. Sen)                                                         (S. Deo Singh)
                      President                                 Member                                                                 President
           District Consumer Disputes         District Consumer Disputes                           District Consumer Disputes
           Redressal Forum, Kamalpur        Redressal Forum, Kamalpur                          Redressal Forum,Kamalpur