Orissa

Jajapur

CC/67/2015

Asish Kumar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst. Superitendent of Posts Jajjpur Sub division,Jajpur - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                       

                                              Dated the 6th day of November,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.67 of 2015

Asish Ku.Mishra  S/O Ananda ch.Mishra  

At. Raipur , P.O. Bhurunga

P.S.Binjharpur ,Dist.-Jajpur. 

On behalf of

Asish Ku.Mishra,

Haramohan Dwibedy

S/O Parikshita Dwibedy

At/P.O.Markandapur ,P.S/Dist.Jajpur .                                                                    …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Asst. Superintendent of posts ,Jajpur sub division, P.S/ Dist. Jajpur.

2.Superintendent of posts ,North division ,Cuttack ,Dist.Cuttack .

3.Asst. Director (PG) Chief Post Master general Odisha Circle,

  Bhubaneswar.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                           Self.

For the Opp.Parties :                           Sri A.K.Das,Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   06.11.2017.

MISS  SMITA  RAY, LADY MEMBER  .

Deficiency in postal service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The facts stated in the complaint petition are that the petitioner is an  inhabitant of  Dist  jajpur but he temporarily is staying at Boroda Gujurat  who had  sent a sony – Xporia-M-Dual mobile phone  cost of Rs. 13,000/- from Boraoda post office to his uncle in law  who reside at Markandapur, Jajpur  through speed post vide parcel no. EE9288359451N dt.-14.08.2014  but the said parcel was not received  by the addressee.  Thereafter the petitioner approached the R.M.S  jajpur Road along with superintendent  of post , Cuttack North Division, Cuttack and  Asst. Superintendent of post office ,Jajpur divison   regarding his grievance through regd.post vide written application dt. 28.10.14  but there is no result for which  he served a legal notice on dt.14.3.15 to chief post master , BBSR  for taking steps against his grievance.  But the postal  Deptt. Only replied investigation is going on . Accordingly finding no other alternative the petitioner knocked the door of this fora to direct the O.P  to pay the cost of the mobile set amounting  Rs.13,000/-  along with  compensation  of  Rs.7,000/-  for mental agony and harassment.

            In response to notice the O.Ps entered  appearance and filed written objection  wherein the O.P submitted that :

The complainant had sent a speed post bearing No.EE928835945IN dt.14.08.14 which was addressed to Sri Haramohan Dwebedy, At/P.O. Markandapur, Via.Chitalo, jajpur . The said speed post article was invoiced in the jajpur road RMS speed post dt.18.08.14 vide speed post bag.no.EBO0003791810 entered at SL No.3 of the speed post manifest and was received at chitalo  SO on 19.08.2015. On opening the speed post bag ,the SPM chitalo SO noticed that the speed post article no.EE928835945IN was not found in the speed post bag. On noticing the same, the SPM chitalo SO sent a Error extract to the sub record officer (SRO) Jajpur Road RMS intimating the non receipt of the speed post article on 19.08.14 and again on 20.08.14 . The SRO ,Jajpur Road RMS, in turn intimated that the article had been dispatched to chitalo SO by jajpur road RMS duly entered in SL no.3/10. The complainant has intimated that he had sent one Sony –x-poria-Dual  mobile vide the above speed post . The above  fact has been intimated to the SSRM, N  Division Cuttack RMS for necessary action vide his office letter no.o5/01/2015 . There are various conditions laid for sending value payable articles through insured post. As per Rule -173 of post office Guide part 1, the insurance covers all risks in course of transmission by post office Guide part 1, the insurance covers all risks in course of transmission by post and in such case, responsibility lies for payment of compensation not exceeding the amount for which the article has been insured. The relevant clause-182 of the post office guide part-1 is enclosed. Since the article in question is a speed post article and it has not been insured, only the compensation limited to double of speed post charges or Rs.1000 which ever is less can be considered for payment to Sri Haramohan Dwivedy, representative of the complainant. Since mobile phone is a valuable item, it should have been sent through other services provided by the Department of posts i.e insured post. The applicant in his application has indicated  that the sender has dispatched one mobile set amounting to Rs.13,000/- through parcel No.EE9288359451N the responsibility of the sender lies for safe packing of the article and since it is a speed post article, the compensation payable to the customers will be double the speed post charges or Rs.1000 which ever is less as per directorate letter No.43-4/87-BDD. Therefore , it is humbly submitted that only the compensation costs as per Departmental rules and guidelines may given to the complainant. Accordingly the complaint petition as laid down before the learned  forum is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

            On the date of hearing we heard the arguments from the petitioner and the learned  counsel of the O.P .

            After going through the pleadings and documents available on record filed by both the parties in details we observe  that :

1.it is a fact that the petitioner after purchase of the said mobile set paying the cost of  Rs.13,000/ has sent the same by speed  post through  the O.P  to the  destination  of his uncle in law / consigner by paying speed post charges  Rs.91/- on dt.14.09.14 from post office Borada Gujurat   bearing Receipt No.EE928835945IN.

2.it is also undisputed fact that  due to non receipt  of the consignment /parcel at the destination point the petitioner served three numbers  of registered  letter on dt.28.10.14 to all the authority of the O.P describing  his grievance  and finally served a legal notice i.e on 13.06.15,   prior to file  the present  dispute but the O.Ps  only reply to the petitioner that we  are inquiring into the matter  but  the O.Ps  did not clarify about the status of the consignment .The next aspect  relates  to consider that the petitioner sent the valuable item /mobile set only by speed post without making it insured and did not produce  any single  scrap  of paper regarding the purchase price of the alleged item/mobile set. In this point it is our considered  view the petitioner fails to establish that what is actual price of the mobile set  as well as contents in the consignment . On the other hand the petitioner filed an affidavit in support of his complaint.  In this point the O.P  only filed objection against the affidavit where as this fora  given opportunity to the O.P  for filing counter affidavit .  The petitioner also filed an  observation of  Hon’ble National  Commission  of  Revision petition  No. 876/2017 wherein it is held that :

“C.P. Act 1986-section-2(1)(g)  and Indian  Post Office Act ,1898 section -6 –speed  post – O.P took almost 7days in delivering application form by speed  post for admission in jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya , which was otherwise expected to reach the destination   within the city in  24 hours- plea of the O.P  is that section -6 of  the Indian post  Office  Act, 1898 exonerates the postal deptt from any kind of liability on account of any loss,mis-delivery ,delay or damage to the postal article   in course of transmission by post – held –that the O.P  had failed to bring on record any evidence to show  that the said “ mis-sending “ was not on account of willful act or default on the part of its employee,  as stipulated in the latter part of section -6  of said  Act –  In that view of the matter and having regard to the fact that a  young  student has lost a valuable one year in getting  admission in the Institution of her choice, the compensation of Rs. 20,000 /- can not be said  to be excessive  by any standard .”    

“Post and  Telegraph Department is a  public utility  service concern . The bureaucratic  red-tepasim should not have been crept into a Department which is involved in the service of general public in day to day basis. The instant case is an example of functioning of postal Telegraph Department at the grass route level most specifically in the rural area, so the service provider should be more vigilant to the woes of the general public. After hearing the argument,  there is no doubt  that the O.P  was negligent in performing the duty . so this is the clear case of deficiency of service.”

            Accordingly we are inclined to hold that the O.Ps have committed patent deficiency of service in  sending the above speed post parcel for which the petitioner suffered mental agony. As such  to meet the ends of justice we allow the dispute as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission R.P.No.541 of 2016 and Delhi State commission reported in 2003(5)-CLD-419-SCDRC,P-419.

O R D E R

In the net result the dispute is allowed against the O.P. The O.Ps are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand )  to the petitioner within one month after receipt of this order. No cost.         

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6th day of November,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.