Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/89/2014

Sannikanti Raveendra babu Son of Nanbaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Superrintendent of Post offices District Head Post Office. - Opp.Party(s)

M.D.Rahimkhan

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing     :04-12-2014

                                                                             Date of Disposal:31-08-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Thursday, this the  31^st day of   AUGUST, 2017

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

C.C.No.89/2014

Sannikanti Raveendra Babu,

S/o.Nanbaiah,

Hindu, Aged about 57 years,

Resident ofD.No.17/4/128,

Yedlavari Street, Nellore                                                         ..… Complainant

                                                             Vs.

                                                              .  

          This complaint coming on 30-08-2017 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Md. Rahimkhan, advocate for the complainant and                                                        Sri  J.C.S. Amarnath, Additional standing counsel for opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

          The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 for payment of Rs.35,000/-  towards the cost of  articles  contained in the parcel with interest  with interest at 12% p.a. from the date  of booking of the  parcel  i.e.,                     13-12-2013 till the date of realization,  to refund registration charges  of Rs.6,502/- with interest  at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of booking of the parcel till the date of realization, Rs.50,000/- towards damages for causing  mental agony and  Rs.2,000/-   towards cost  of  packing charges incurred by the complainant with interest  at 12 % p.a. from  the date of booking of the parcel i.e., 13-12-2013 till date of realization and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

             The complainant submits that  the complainant  sent one parcel containing costly readymade garments and valuable gift articles worth Rs.35,000/-  to his daughter Sobha  Sannikante, 45, Park Viewter, Augusta Maine, 04330-7938,  USA  through  opposite parties.  The opposite party No.1 collected  Rs.6,502/-  towards parcel transport postal charges  for the said parcel on 13-12-2013  under receipt bearing No.RN6798429421N . At the time of booking the said parcel , the opposite parties 1 and 2 promised and assured that the said parcel will reach to the addressee within  10 days.  The complainant believing the promises and assurance of opposite parties booked the said  parcel by paying heavy  amount of Rs.6,502/-   towards postal  charges.  The complainant further submits that inspite  of lapse of 20 days, the said parcel has not  reached the addressee, the complainant approached the opposite parties 1 and 2 and requested to deliver the said parcel immediately by setting that the said parcel containing readymade  garments etc., was sent to his daughter,  son-in-law  and his grand-daughter on the eve of occasion of birthday  of his grand-daughter  on 05-01-2014  and also for Sankranthi Festival.  But the opposite parties   1 and 2 promised and stated that the said articles will be delivered before 5^th of January, 2014 itself.   But the said parcel was not delivered to the addressee so far.  So with a great  pain the complainant   vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties addressed a complaint by way of letter  in writing dated 29-01-2014 and requested to enquire the matter and immediately to  deliver the said parcel to the addressee. Inspite of issuing of notice as  no compliance was made, again issued  letter dated 21-05-2014 and requested to deliver the said parcel immediately.  After a   month the opposite parties sent a letter dated 18-06-2014 to the complainant stating that the said parcel is returned to the sendor with barcode No.CP416069109IN in surface mail No.3 through  ship on 01-05-2014 and further stated that the said returned parcel will reach more than three months to India.  Hence the complainant vexed with the negligent attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice through his counsel dated 04-07-2014  calling upon the opposite parties to pay cost of parcel, postal charges collected with interests besides damages.  Having received the same opposite party No.1 issued reply requesting the complainant to intimate the   details of  contents of the parcel and value of contents.  The complainant informed the details of contents and its value immediately.  But to his utter surprise again the opposite party No.1 addressed letter to the counsel of complainant stating that they are in want on the article movements and advised to wait for some more time.  But again the opposite party No.1 addressed a letter dated 05-08-2014 requested the complainant to intimate the details of contents  of parcel and its value again, though the complainant already intimated the same and also by way of legal notice.  So there is no need to intimate again and again, the complainant as no other go again submitted the said details by email to opposite parties.  But again the opposite party No.1 sent another letter dated 16-09-2014 requesting to send the details  through  email to

                    It is submitted that believing the promises and assurances  of opposite parties the complainant booked a parcel containing valuable readymade garments  and gift articles worth  Rs.35,000/- besides incurred postal charges of Rs.6,502/- and also incurred Rs.2,000/- towards cost of packing charges with a fond hope that the said parcel will reach to the addressee i.e., to the daughter  of the complainant so as to enable them to wear the said garments   and receive the gift articles  on the birth day  of his grand daughter or atleast on the  occasion of Indians most famous festival Sankranthi fall on 14-01-2014.  But the said parcel was not  delivered to the addressee or even not returned to the complainant so far and inspite of several requests, approaches and also lot of  correspondence,   the opposite parties have been giving evasive replies without   delivering or returning the said parcel.  The attitude of opposite parties clearly shows their sheer negligence  and deficiency in service.  Having received the heavy amount ofRs.6,502/- towards postal charges  it is the bounded duty of the opposite parties either   to deliver the parcel or to return the same but all the efforts of the complainant are in vain due to deficiency in service and negligent attitude of opposite parties.  Due to that the complainant and his family members suffered lot of mental agony, distress financial loss and much inconvenience,  for which the opposite parties are not only liable to deliver the said parcel either to the addressee or complainant immediately or to pay its costs of  Rs.35,000/, postal charges of Rs.6,502/-  and packing charges of Rs.2,000/-besides damages  and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

          The opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same was adopted by the opposite party No.2 with the following averments that: it is a fact  that a complaint was  received regarding non delivery of the above said foreign air R.P.RN679842942IN dated  13-12-2013 booked by Sri S. Raveendra Babu, Yedlavari Street, Nellore-1 at Nellore H.O. (with reassigned   No.CP416801393IN) addressed to Smt.Shobha Sannikante, 45, Parkview Ter, Augusta, Maine 04330-7938, USA.  The said  parcel has been   dispatched to USA in Air Mail No.518, dated 14-12-2013.  As the said article was not delivered to the addressee, a complaint was preferred by Sri S. Raveendra Babu, C/o.Ravi Mess, Nellore-1 and the same was registered vide web complaint No.524001-00488 and was processed in web through Nellore HO. As all the foreign articles are routed through Chennai  Foreign Post, a search bill was issued for stage by stage to locate the disposal of it.  It is intimated by the  Director, Foreign Post, Chennai-600 001 that the said parcel was unclaimed by the addressee in USA  and hence it was returned to sender  by   the US Post in sea mail No.3 dated 01-05-2014, as routine course in dealing the returned article by surface mail.  However the said parcel was not returned to sender even after two months. A reminder  was issued to the O/o. the Director, Foreign Post, Chennai vide   Nellore HO letters dated 21-05-2014 and 07-06-2014  and web complaint was registered again in this regard vide complaint No.524100-06959  dated 09-06-2014   through Nellore division Customer  Care Centre  as the article was not returned / delivered to sender.  The Chennai Foreign Post relied vide web reply dated 13-06-2014, that  the said parcel is Unclaimed / Item returned to sender with Barcode No.CP416069109IN  in sea Mail No.03   (thro ship) on 1/5/14 with wt.12.2 kg.  and the same will take more than 3 months to reach India.  The sender was intimated accordingly.  The USA Administration denied liability and refused to provide compensation to  the sender as some of the parcels in the sea mail no.3 to Delhi foreign were received. The case has been pursued with Foreign Post, Chennai-600 001 and Foreign Post Delhi International Mail Centre, New Delhi to ascertain the details of further disposal of the said article. As per the information received from the Director Foreign Post, New Delhi vide letter No.FP/RP/OC-14/14, dated 20-01-2015  the said article was not received back from  US Post so far. Subsequently, the Director, Foreign Post, Chennai vide letter No.F5/OP-20/2013-14, dated 11-02-2015 has intimated that the Foreign Administration has accepted liability and    has authorized compensation at their cost vide Rs.14,115/- as  per the Article 21(4.1) of Parcel Post Manual Berne-2005 in respect of the parcel.  The sender / complainant has been addressed vide this office letter dated 24-02-2015 for submitting  claim application and the same will be settled on receipt at the earliest.

          As per clause 107 (C)  of Post Office Guide Part-II, the delivery of foreign parcels in the country of destination is governed by the internal  regulations.  In many countries uninsured parcels are treated like unregistered   parcels and no receipt  is taken at the time of delivery.

          As per clause 124(a) of  Post Office guide Part-II, (Rules and Regulations relating to foreign post) USA  Postal Administration does not accept liability for uninsured parcels. Consequently  compensation is not paid unless the loss or  damage has occurred within India.  However as per Clause 124(b), a maximum amount ofRs.300/-  only will be paid as compensation.  Indirect losses or loss of profits are not taken into account in calculating    the amount of compensation.

          The contention of the complainant that the parcel contains clothes worth Rs.35,000/-  is intangible since the contents of the  letters are not declared either   orally or in writing  at the time of booking.  Post office has no obligation to inspect the contents before being booked or after booking.  The article is not presented with any invoice of contents or declaration.

          The Indian Postal Department had taken all the necessary steps in booking and transmission of the articles to the destination in the usual course.  The opposite parties have taken all possible steps to locate the disposal of the said registered parcel by making continuous and protracted correspondence.  There is no willful   delay   or deficiency    of service on the part of the opposite party in attending to the complaint of the complainant.  It is further submitted that there is no deficiency of service in this case on the part of this opposite party as this opposite party positively and quickly acted on the complaint in giving a suitable reply to the complainant from time to time. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have not caused  any fault, in any way, for non disposal  of the article. The opposite parties are not liable for any damages / relief  sought in this complaint on the following grounds:

1.  The Parcels are not insured as such there is no contractual liability to cover all risks in course of transmission by post.
2. The object of registration is to make the transmission of the article more secure as it passes through the hands of many post offices.
3. Under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, 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 and submits for the dismissal of the complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 with costs.

          3.      On behalf of the complainant P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked.

4.       On behalf of opposite parties R.W.1 was examined  and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked.

          5.       Written arguments filed on behalf of both parties.

    6.Arguments heard on behalf of learned counsels for both parties.        Perused  the written arguments filed  on behalf of both parties.

          7.       Now the points for consideration are:

1.   Whether  there is any deficiency of service on the part of  opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant?
2. To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

          8.      POINT No.1:  The learned counsel for complainant submits  by relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2   and Exs.A1 to A14 that the complainant sent registered parcel to his daughter through the post on            13-12-2013  but the said parcel was not served  on the  daughter   of the complainant  and on enquiry and  after giving notices he came to know that the said parcel was  misplaced   and inspite of submitting  of letters  and inspite of issuing  of legal notice as the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to pay cost of the parcel, registered  parcel expenses, he submits that the complainant filed  by complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2   for the recovery  of the amount and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

          On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 submits  by relying upon a decision reported in

          that  under Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the opposite parties are not liable to pay  any amount and hence the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 is not maintainable and submits for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.           In view of the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the both parties and as seen from the facts of the case, there is no dispute that the  sending of the parcel through the post office at Nellore to the daughter of the complainant.  The sending of the parcel  and its misplace was not disputed by the opposite parties.  In view of the facts of the complaint under Section-6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898 give protections to the opposite parties  1 and 2.  

          Wherein  the Hon’ble Apex Court held that  the postal department is immune  under Section-6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898.

          Wherein the Honble National Commission held that unless fraudulent, willful act or default not proved, post offices not liable under Section-6 of the Act.

          Wherein  the Hon’ble National Commission held  as follows:   “National Commission followed it, observing the present posting a letter  or delivery packet at post office  for transmission   does not enter into any contract with the Government.  He only avails of a service statutorily provided by the Government.   Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 granted  complete immunity to the Government for the loss, mis-delivery or damage to the postal articles.  The postage  stamps affixed  is not a  price paid for the services.  The complaint in the  Consumer Forum is not maintainable”.

          Wherein the  Hon’ble National Commission held that  common liability    could be fixed  on post offices when a postal  article  was  lost   and that Section-6 of the post offices act granted immunity to the postal authorities.

          9.       By relying upon the above decisions, we are of the opinion that  as there is no deficiency of service by the opposite parties under Section-6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898 and  as the complainant failed to prove fraudulent, willful act  or default in not  serving a parcel which was booked by the complainant, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service by the opposite parties against the complainant and hence as there is no deficiency of service by the opposite parties, the complainant filed  by the  complaint against the opposite parties  1 and 2 is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.

By relying  upon the above decisions and  discussion made above, we  answered  this point against  the complainant and in favour  of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

            10.       POINT No.2: In view  of our answering on point No.1, against the complainant and in favour of the opposite  parties 1 and 2, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 has to be dismissed.

                 In the result,  the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances no costs.

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  31^st day of  AUGUST, 2017.

          Sd/-                                                                              Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT

                                       APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

                                                                                                    Id/-                                                                                                                                 

                                 PRESIDENT

Copies to:

Date when free copy was issued: