Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/389

Rajinder Pal Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

04 Feb 2019

ORDER

         DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :   389 of 2017

Date of Institution :   8.12.2017

Date of Decision :     4.02.2019

Rajinder Pal Gupta aged 75 years son of Lachman Dass r/o BV/51, Old Jail Road, Faridkot.                                                                    

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Chief Post Master, Main Post Office, Faridkot.
2. Chief Post Master General, Sandesh Bhawan, Sector 17 E, Punjab, Chandigarh.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-122001.
4. Sub Post Master, Bhorakalan, District Gurgaon.                  ..........OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Jaskirat Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the cost of parcel of clothes delivered at wrong place by Ops and for further directing OPs to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

   2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant sent a parcel containing some clothes worth Rs.4000/-to his grandson

cc no.- 389 of 2017

at Gurgaon through speed post vide receipt dated 24.07.2017 and paid Rs.142/-as fees to OP-1. OPs assured to deliver the parcel within 3-4 days at its destination, but even after 6 days, when parcel did not reach at its destination, complainant approached OP-1 and asked about the same. He was told that his parcel has been wrongly delivered at Flipkart on 28.07.2017, complainant requested OP-1 to recollect the same and send it to its destination. OP-1 assured to do so, but did not do the needful. Complainant also wrote letters dated 31.07.2017 and 3.08.2017 to OPs with request to deliver the parcel at its destination, but to no effect. After that complainant got registered complaint to OPs through online system with request to deliver the parcel at its destination and to fix responsibility of concerned staff, but OPs paid no heed to the requests of complainant. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                            Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 12.12.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                  On receipt of notice, OPs filed written reply wherein they took preliminary objections that speed post article no.EP484224173 IN was booked from Faridkot on 24.07.2017 without any insurance, but they do not know about the contents of said parcel. It is averred that compensation to the tune of Rs.284/- has been sanctioned in favour of complainant vide memo dated

cc no.- 389 of 2017

28.02.2018 and more than this, cannot be paid to complainant. It is further averred that as per section 6 of Post Office Act 1898, the Government shall not incur any liability for loss, mis-delivery or delay  or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far such liability may be undertaken by the Central Government. In this case, no ill conduct of any official is found and as such Department cannot be held responsible. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that parcel was delivered at wrong place and they sanctioned compensation of Rs.284/- in favour of complainant. It is further averred that parcel of complainant was not insured and they are not liable for more than this amount. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                                         Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-10 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jarnail Singh Ex OP-1 and  documents Ex OP-2 to 5 and then, closed the same.

7                                                             We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file                by complainant as well as opposite party.

 

cc no.- 389 of 2017

8                                         Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that on 24.07.2017, complainant sent a parcel containing some clothes worth Rs.4000/-to his grandson at Gurgaon through speed post and paid Rs.142/-as fees to OP-1. OPs assured to deliver the parcel within 3-4 days at its destination, but even after 6 days, when parcel did not reach at its destination, complainant approached OP-1, where he was told that his parcel has been wrongly delivered at Flipkart on 28.07.2017, complainant requested OP-1 to recollect the same and send it at its destination. Complainant also wrote letters dated 31.07.2017 and 3.08.2017 to OP-3 with request to deliver the parcel at its destination, but to no effect. After that complainant got registered complaint to OPs through online system with request to deliver the parcel at its destination and to fix responsibility of concerned staff, but OPs did not do the needful. All this caused harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for directing OPs to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief.

9                                     To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for Ops argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is admitted that uninsured parcel of complainant was given to them for delivery at Gurgaon, which could not be delivered at its destined place and therefore, for this compensation of Rs.284/-has already been sanctioned in favour of complainant. complainant is not entitled for any amount more than sanctioned compensation of Rs.284/-.  It is further averred that as per section 6 of Post Office Act 1898, the Government shall not incur any liability for loss, mis-delivery or delay  or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far such liability may be undertaken by the Central Government. In this case, no ill conduct of any official is found and as such Department cannot be held responsible. He

cc no.- 389 of 2017

denied all the allegations of complainant being incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that parcel was delivered at wrong place and they sanctioned compensation of Rs.284/- in favour of complainant. It is further averred that parcel of complainant was not insured and they are not liable for more than this amount. All the other allegations are refuted being incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10                                       From the careful perusal of record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he sent a parcel to his grandson at Gurgaon. Said parcel contained clothes worth Rs.4000/-. Ops assured him to deliver the parcel within 3-4 days, but they did not deliver the same at its destination even after passing many days. Complainant approached Ops where they told him that his parcel has been wrongly delivered by them at Flipkart. Grievance of complainant is that though he made several requests through registered letters and through online complaints to OPs to redress his  grievance by recollecting the parcel from Flipkart and to deliver the same at its destined placed, but OPs did not pay any heed to his requests and nothing needful was done by them. In reply OPs admitted before the Forum that parcel of complainant was wrongly delivered somewhere else and for this, they have already sanctioned compensation of Rs.284/-in favour of complainant and complainant is not entitled for more than the sanctioned compensation of Rs.284/-. Ops have prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                                  Complainant has fully proved his pleadings through Ex C-3, that is copy of letter dated 3.08.2017 written by complainant to Post Master, Faridkot wherein it is clearly written that parcel of complainant has been wrongly delivered at Flipkart and he requested OPs to recollect his parcel from Flipkart and

cc no.- 389 of 2017

deliver it to Gurgaon at  its original destination. Ex C-5 is also copy of registered letter written by complainant to OPs wherein he has reiterated his grievance and made request to Ops to redress the same. Ex C-8 is the copy of computer generated copy of detail wherein it is clearly mentioned that parcel of complainant booked in the name of Rajinder Pal Gupta was wrongly delivered by Ops to Flipkart on 28.07.2017. Ex C-10 also narrates the similar story.  It is admitted case of the parties that complainant sent a parcel for delivery at Gurgaon through speed post on 24.07.2017, which Ops could not deliver at destined place and wrongly sent the same somewhere else. It is also admitted by Ops that something wrong has been done by them and there is deficiency in service on their part, for which they have already sanctioned compensation of Rs.284/-for the complainant.

12                                          In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint  in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to refund Rs. 4000/- as cost of parcel  and are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- jointly and severally to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him.  Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 4.02.2019

 

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)            (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                        President                                         

 

 

cc no.389 of 2017

Rajinder Pal Gupta   Vs  Chief Post Master

 

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Jaskirat Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                 Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum,

Dated:  4.02.2019           

                                                Member                         President