BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.3105/2017

PRESENT:                                                          

Sri.K.S.Bilagi, B.com, M.A., LL.M.….   PRESIDENT

Smt.L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.….    MEMBER

Sri. M.B. Seena, B.A., (Law), LL.B.             ….        MEMBER

S/o Sri.Gyan Chand,

Aged about 63 Years,

R/o s-77, Golden Enclave,

Old Airport Road,

 (Rep by Sri.I.A, Adv)

V/s

 OPPOSITE PARTY:

Chief Post Master,

General Post Office,

Bangalore-560 001.

(Opposite Party is Rep Sri.K.Prakash Rao., Adv)

WRITTEN BY SRI K.S.BILAGI., PRESIDENT

******

//ORDER ON MERIT//

1. The complaint by invoking under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeks direction against the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.25,022/- with interest. 

2. The case of the Complainant in brief is as under:

The Complainant has booked a registered letter dt.10.01.2017 bearing No.RK346577827IN with General Post Office (GPO), Bangalore for Panaji Goa to be delivered to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji, but the said registered letter never delivered to the addressee.Even though, subsequent letter through RPAD dt.24.04.2017 has been served on the addressee.

3. The Complainant also contends that Opposite Party confirmed the delivery on 16.01.2017 in the office of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.  This act of Opposite Party delivering the registered post to the wrong person amounts to deficiency of service.

4. The Complainant has spent Rs.22/- towards registration charges, he claims Rs.10,000/- as monitory loss and Rs.15,000/- towards legal expenses.  Hence this complaint.   

5. The Opposite Party suomoto appeared through its counsel and files version.  The claim against Opposite Party is not maintainable and Opposite Party being the Union of India has been discharging sovereign function.  Therefore, Opposite Party is not liable to pay any claim to the Complainant.

6. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as letter addressed to Panaji Goa.  The present complaint is not maintainable for misjoinder/non joinder of necessary parties.   The Chief Post Master Officer is no way concerned to this case.  It is the case of the Complainant for non-delivery of registered post.  The Complainant has booked registered articles bearing No.RK346577827IN with GPO, which is only proper authority to answer the claim of the Complainant.  As per provisions of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Indian Post Office and its officials are exempted by law for any alleged loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission.  Therefore, the Opposite Party requests this Commission to dismiss the complaint.

7. The Complainant has filed objection to the version stating that the version has not been within 45 days as contemplated under the provisions.  Therefore, the Complainant requests to reject the version.

8. The Complainant files affidavit evidence and relies on certain documents. The affidavit evidence of Opposite Party filed.  The Complainant and Opposite Party file written arguments.

9.  Heard the arguments of both side and perused the citations relied by both parties. 

10.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether this Forum had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the date of complaint?

2. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party ?

3. Whether the complainant is entitle to reliefs claimed in the complaint ?

4. What order? 

11. Our findings on the above points are as under:-

1. POINT NO.1  to 3  : Negative
2. POINT NO.4           : As per the final order for

                                the following;

:REASONS:

12. POINT NO.1:- The Complainant files this complaint stating that he had sent a registered letter from Bengaluru to Panaji Goa through Opposite Party.  Whereas the Opposite Party contends that the deficiency if any is not that of Opposite Party.  When the Complainant is the resident of Bengaluru and part of the cause of action arose at Bengaluru, this Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the date of filing the complaint.

13. POINT NO.2 & 3:- It is the duty of the Complainant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  It is one of the contention of the Opposite Party that the Complainant had booked a registered post on 10.01.2017 at General Post Office, Bengaluru and GPO, Bengaluru is the proper person to answer the allegations made by the Complainant.  It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Party Chief Post Master, Bengaluru GPO had addressed a letter to Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Goa Division with regard to wrong delivery of the registered letter of the Complainant.  If really the Opposite Party is nothing to do with this case, we failed to understand why the Opposite Party had addressed a letter dt.13.12.2017 to its counterpart at Goa.  Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the Opposite Party that Senior Superintendent of Post Offices is the necessary party. 
14. “About Belated Version”. It is settled proposition of law including latest decision of Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Opposite Party must file version within 45 days from the date of service of notice with complaint and District Forum/Commission has no power to extend the period of 45 days to enable the parties to file version.

15. We carefully perused the records.  On 15.12.2017 the order has been passed to issue notice to Opposite Party through RPAD returnable by 22.01.2018.  Eventhough, notice not returned on 22.01.2018, but Opposite Party appeared through its counsel by filing a memo of appearance.  It is pertinent to note that the notice with copy of complaint had been sent to the Opposite Party on 20.12.2017.  Eventhough acknowledgement not returned, but appearance of Opposite Party through its counsel on 22.01.2018 is sufficient to say that the notice with copy of complaint must have been served on the Opposite Party prior to 22.01.2018.  It is not the case of the Opposite Party that the notice with copy of the complaint not served on it prior to 22.01.2018.  The Opposite Party has filed version on 12.03.2018 after lapse of 45 days from 22.01.2018.  Therefore, the Complainant is right in saying that there is no version in the eye of law by the Opposite Party.  Therefore, the belated version cannot be accepted.

16. The question arises, even though version is not accepted and it is not taken into consideration, but Opposite Party is entitle to canvas the arguments on legal points.  The burden lies on the Complainant to prove his case on merits. 

17. “About Admitted Facts”. The Complainant had booked a registered letter bearing No.RK346577827IN, dt.10.01.2017 at GPO, Bengaluru addressed to Income Tax Office, Panaji Goa on 10.01.2017.  Eventhough, Goa Division received this registered letter of the Complainant, but it has wrongly served the said letter in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Panaji Goa not on the addressee mentioned in the cover.  It is also admitted fact that the Opposite Party made a correspondence with its counterpart at Goa Division about delivery of registered cover of the Complainant to the addressee, but later on it has been transferred that on 16.01.2017 the said letter of the Complainant came to be served in the office of Central Excise at Panaji Goa and not in the office of Income Tax.  It has been proved that there is a wrong delivery of the registered cover of the Complainant.  In this regard, there is a negligence on the part of the Opposite Party more particularly counter part of the Opposite Party at Goa.  The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Goa Division is not party to this proceeding.  The Complainant for the reasons best known to him has not made Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Goa Division for non-delivery of article to the addressee.  

18. The Complainant vehemently argues that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and Opposite Party is liable to pay the amount claimed in this case.  In support of his argument, he places reliance on the following two orders. 

1. Order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No.1590/2000, in the matter between Union of India & others V/s Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave & another.

2. The order of the Bangalore 1^st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shanthinagar, Bangalore in complaint No.2018/2018 of the same Complainant against the same Opposite Party in regard to the similar deficiency of service. 

19. We carefully perused the facts of both orders.

20. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently argues that as per Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation.  In support of his argument, he places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.4567/2012 in the matter between Senior Superintendent of Post Offices V/s Dharamveer Harijan.

21.  Eventhough, the Opposite Party refers section-84 of Indian Post Office Act-1898, during the course of argument, The Indian Post Office Act 1898 contains Section-1 to 77 only.  There is no provision like Section-84 Indian post Office Act-1898. 

22. In order to appreciate the contention of respective parties.  It is relevant to refer Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 which reads thus;

6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage.  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 as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. 

23. In the first order relied by the Complainant, complaint was against Railway Department for loss of articles of the passenger due to the theft.  In this Order of State Commission of Gujarath Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 was not involved.  Eventhough, Hon’ble 1^st Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru was pleased to allow the similar complaint of the Complainant against the same Opposite Party.  But neither Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, nor the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission relied by the present Opposite Party referred or considered.  Therefore, both orders relied by the Complainant do not help the Complainant.

24. Similar question about non-delivery of registered cover to the addressee i.e. office of addressee was involved in the order of the Hon’ble National Commission relied by the Counsel for the Opposite Party.  The Hon’ble National Commission referring the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and larger bench decision of the Hon’ble National Commission allowed the Revision Petition of the Postal Department and was pleased to dismiss the complaint.  It is relevant to refer Para-9 and 10 of the above order which reads thus;

9. We have also perused S-6 of Post Office Act.  There is not even an iota of evidence that the loss was caused fraudulently or by postman’s willful act of default.  The Complainant has not alleged that he was having bad blood with the officials of the post office.  It is the loss of the Government and not the loss of the Complainant.  The liability of government of India for loss or mis-delivery of insured articles and loss in the course of transmission by post is not contractual but purely statutory in nature.

10. This Commission consisting of four members Bench in the case of the Presidency Post Master and another V/s Dr.U.Shankar Rao, Revision Petition No.175/2000 and 247/192 decided on 15.04.1993 was pleased to hold that “services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability, Establishing the Post Offices and running the postal service the Central Government performs a Governmental function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges posed by the state for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract.  The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier”.

25. Eventhough, in Para-10 the Revision Petition No.175/2000 and 247/192 have been referred, but in fact the correct Revision Petition numbers were 175/1992, 247/1992.  Eventhough, in Para-10 it has been referred that the Hon’ble National Commission consist of 4 member’s bench has passed an order on 15.04.1993.  Infact this decision referred in Para-10 has been rendered by a larger bench of the Hon’ble National Commission consisting of Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.B.Eradi, Mr.Justice A.S.Vijayakar, Mr.Justice B.S.Yadav.  The Complainant has not placed any decision contrary to decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter between Senior Superintendent of Post Offices V/s Dharamveer Harijan.  It is also relevant to note that subsequently Hon’ble National Commission in the Year 2014 has rendered a similar decision in the matter between Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Post, Alwar V/s Mubarik Khan dt.21.08.2014 and took the similar view and upheld the contention of Postal Department.  In view of Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and decision of Hon’ble National Commission referred above, the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation.   Even though, the Complainant is able to prove non-delivery of his registered post to the addressee i.e., Income Tax Department, Panaji Goa.  But in view of Section-6 of the Post Office Act and above decision of Hon’ble National Commission, the Complainant is not entitled to any compensation in particular and any claim from the Opposite Party.

26. POINT NO.4:-   In view of the discussion and reason assigned above, the complaint requires to be dismissed.  We proceed to pass the following;
6698606.  

The Complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by the open Forum on 20^th day of February 2021)

• M.B. SEENA )      (L.MAMATHA)      (K.S.BILAGI)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

• , who being the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Copy of letter booked on 10.01.2017.
2. Copy of appellate authority letter dt.23.05.2017.
3. Copy of Complainant letter dt.27.05.2017, 15.09.2017, 20.09.2017 & 17.11.2017.
4. Copy of Opposite Party letter dt.19.09.2017, 23.09.2017 & 14.11.2017.
5. Citations.

Witness examined for the opposite party side:                  

 Sri.B.S.Chandrashekar, Chief Post Master of the Opposite Party has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the opposite parties side:

1. Citations.  

• M.B. SEENA )         (L.MAMATHA)          (K.S.BILAGI)    
•