ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 07.08.2013 passed by the District Forum, Almora in consumer complaint No. 02 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,838/- within a month from the date of order together with interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint, i.e. 23.03.2010, till the date of payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the appeal, are that the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Almora, alleging that complainant-Avni Sanstha Tripuradevi had booked a speed post parcel through its director on 01.09.2008 having receipt            No. EE 100401103IN to Mr. Ricardo Gramegna Gandhi in Action Network vide XXV Apriel 513011 Borgosia (Varsali) Italy – 00393292298658.  The cost of the item of the said parcel was Rs. 60,070/-.  As the aforesaid parcel was not reached in time to its destination and could not delivered to its recipient, so the complainant approached to the opposite party No. 1-Superintendent of Post, Almora on 06.11.2008 and enquired about status of its parcel. The opposite party No. 1 has intimated the complainant that the said parcel was returned back to Head Post Office, Pithoragarh through Bareilly RMS on 28.10.2008 and on 31.10.2008 the said parcel was sent back to Bareilly RMS for delivery to its recipient again. Further investigation of the matter is going on and the status about parcel will be intimated again. On 05.01.2009, S.P.O.S., Almora Division, Almora has informed the complainant through a letter that the said parcel was delivered to recipient on 29.11.2008, thus, the matter was closed on 05.01.2009.  According to the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 has given false statement in the letter dated 05.01.2009 about the delivery of the said parcel, while the said parcel was returned back to the complainant-Avni Sanstha on 03.12.2008. There is a great deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1 by not delivering the said parcel to the recipient and returned back to its sender. The complainant has suffered mental agony and economic & business loss. The item/commodity in the parcel was a sample which need to be shown to Mr. Ricardo Gramegna in Italy, which was associated with their business deal. The said item need to be displayed in the exhibition held at Villaggio Leumann, Corso Francia-Collogno, Italy from 26 to 28, September, 2008.  However, the said parcel was not displayed due to non-receiving of the same, so the business deal could not take place. The cost of the item of the above parcel was of Rs. 60,070/- and Rs. 5,838/- was paid as postal charges by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1. Two persons went to Italy to participate in the said exhibition for their future business. The total expenditure of travelling and accommodation of two persons were             Rs. 1,50,000/-, which was paid by the complainant, so it is prayed by the complainant before the Forum below to get back Rs. 5,838/- as postal charges alongwith interest @ 18% per annum on the loss amount from 01.09.2008 till the date of payment. The total expenditure incurred on travelling from India to Italy on two persons were Rs. 1,50,000/- need to be refunded back from the opposite parties. The opposite parties also be directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards economic and business loss & mental agony and Rs. 25,000/- for costs of litigation to the complainant.

3.       The opposite parties have filed the written statement before the District Forum and admitted the fact that the complainant has booked a parcel on 01.09.2008 to Mr. Ricardo Gramegna Gandhi in Action Network vide XXV Apriel 513011 Borgosia (Varsali) Italy – 00393292298658 from the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 had no idea about the item in parcel.  Para Nos. 2 & 3 of the consumer complaint has also admitted by the answering opposite parties that the information providing to complainant was based on IPS Tracking and on the basis of it, the matter of the complainant was closed on 05.01.2009.  The answering opposite parties pleaded that the complainant was informed about the parcel on the basis of IPS Tracking, which is a main source of tracking the speed post from the sender to destination.  No false information was provided to the complainant vide letter dated 05.01.2009. On 12.02.2009, the aforesaid parcel was returned back to the complainant with an endorsement of postal department, which can be seen over the wrapper of the parcel.  It was necessary that the complainant should submit that wrapper before the Forum below, for which the reason can be found that why the said parcel could not be delivered to its destination. The aforesaid parcel was returned back to the complainant on 12.02.2009. If the parcel was handed over to the complainant without such special endorsement from the Postal Department, then the complainant can file its complaint within four months before the Postal Department, as specified by the Postal Department in the case of International Speed Post. So the Postal Department could not investigate the matter and could not punish the responsible person. But the complainant did not file any complainant before the Postal Department upto one year from the date of incident. It is admitted that the complainant paid Rs. 5,838/- as postal charges to the Postal Department, but the Department was not aware about the items inside the parcel.  If the cost of the item of the parcel was Rs. 60,070/-, then the complainant should have insured the said parcel, but the same was sent through normal speed post. No allegations were made against any employee of the Postal Department.  It is not accepted that the parcel was returned back to the complainant without any reason. The complainant should file the complaint about its grievance before the Postal Department. The complainant filed a consumer complaint after a period of more than 12 months, therefore, the consumer complaint filed by the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum. 

4.       The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 07.08.2013 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties-Postal Department have filed this appeal.

5.       We have heard Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), learned counsel for the appellants-Postal Department and have also perused the material placed on record. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service through publication in the newspaper.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellants has stated before this Commission that the parcel was returned back to the sender-complainant-respondent with the endorsement that the recipient did not receive the parcel, so that the appellants sent back the parcel to the respondent. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. In these circumstances, the District Forum has not justified to impose the amount of Rs. 5,838/- on the appellants. The District Forum has not considered this fact that the country, where the parcel was to be delivered, have their own law of Rugby inquiry, where the delivery of the parcel was stopped due to non-providing of VAT registration. The recipient was intimated about this, but he did not take any concern about the same. So the concerned Department sent back the said parcel to the respondent and respondent had received it. The District Forum has over looked the provision of Section-6 of the Indian Postal Act, 1898, which reads as under:-

“Sec-6 - Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage:

The Govt. shall not incur liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except on so far as such liability may in express terms under taken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the post office shall incur any 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.”

Thus, he submitted that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts and legal aspects of the case and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside due to its factual and legal infirmity and appeal is fit to be allowed. 

7.       After perusal of the record, it is clear that the respondent had booked a parcel for Italy through the opposite party No. 1.  It is evident by a letter dated 22.07.2010 of the Manager, Speed Post Centre, New Delhi that the parcel was returned to sender as unclaimed on 22.10.2008, as the matter was taken up on Rugby inquiry with the concerned counterparts at Italy.  According to Despatch and Receptacle information, the article was returned to sender as unclaimed on 22.10.2008.  The above fact is confirmed by the Item Tracking Record (paper No. 23) where serial number “H” dated 21.10.2008, it is mentioned that Item Tracking/Failed Delivery and in the reference, it was written that unclaimed/returned item E22 returned to the sender.  No evidence has been adduced by the complainant-respondent to show that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

8.       The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order.  The order impugned being not sustainable in the eyes of law, is liable to be set aside and the appeal is fit to be allowed. 

9.       For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 07.08.2013 passed by the District Forum, Almora, is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 02 of 2010 is dismissed.  No order as to cost.  The amount deposited by the appellants as statutory amount at the time of filing the appeal be released in favour of the appellants.