Orissa

Cuttak

CC/203/2021

Manas Ranjan Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Superitendent of Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

S Pradhan & associates

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.203/2021

          Mr. Manas Ranjan Nayak,

          S/O:Late Bhagirathi Nayak,

          Residing at Duladevi Road,Kalyaninagar,

          Cuttack-753013,Odisha                                             ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Chief Superintendent of Post Office,

Cantonment Road,Cuttack-753001.

 

2.       Chief Post Master General,4th street,Unit-3,Kharvel Nagar,Bhubaneswar-751001

 

3.         Director General (Posts),

                          Dak Bhawan,Sansad Marg,

                          Sansad Marg Area,

                          New Delhi-110001.                                                       ....Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    07.12.2021

Date of Order:  17.04.2023

 

For the complainant:                    Mr. S.Pradhan,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps  :                Mr. D.R.Bhokta,Adv. & Associates.

 

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                         

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had hired the services of the O.Ps for sending some valuable items including life savings goods vide document no.CO100542494IN dt.19.12.2020 by paying an amount ofRs.1690/- for his grand child, daughter-in-law and son who are residing at Kigali,Rawanda.  Due to pandemic situation, there was inordinate delay.  When the parcel was not delivered in due time which carried perishable items also, the complainant had to lodged complaint before the competent authority vide his complaint no.2000925 dt.12.1.2021and without delivering the said parcel to the intended person nor returning it back to the complainant, the complaint of the complainant was surprisingly closed by the O.Ps without assigning any proper reason to him.  The complainant had to run from pillar to post and had to send several reminders to various authorities of the O.Ps even being a senior citizen and ultimately when no result yielded he took resort of this Commission by filing the case  thereby making prayer for refund of the service charges to the tune of Rs.1690/- as paid by him to the O.Ps together with interest thereon and further with a compensation from them to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the irreparable loss and injury as sustained by him.  The complainant has claimed litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- from the O.Ps and has also  prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

               Together with his complaint petition the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.            The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version wherein they admit about the parcel being sent by the complainant bearing No.CO100542494IN dt.19.12.2020 from  College Square MDG addressed to one Pratap Keshari Nayak, Mega Life Science Ltd.,C/o:ABACUS PHARMA (A) LIMITED, B.P4344,B-85,Kigly City Market,Rawanda.  On the same day the article was despatched to Cuttack Parcel Hub.  On 01.01.2021 the said article was booked to Mumbai Foreign Post Office as per reply from Kolkata RMS Division in the CRM complaint no.2000695240.  On 28.1.2021 it was intimated by Mumbai Foreign Post Office that “Due to Covid-19 situation, flight service to the destination country was not available and whenever flight service will resume, it will be forwarded to the destination country on top priority”.  On 9.2.2021 Mumbai Foreign Post Office replied that the parcel once again attended to be despatched through Mumbai Foreign Post Office to South Africa air mail no.29.  Thereafter the article was remarked as “in transit”.  The delivery confirmation was sought for by Cuttack G.P.O on5.2.2021,11.2.2021and again on 12.2.2021 but no reply was sent from Mumbai Foreign Post Office due to which the complaint as filed by the complainant was closed on 15.2.21 with a request to the complainant to allow some further time to intimate the disposal of the article.  It is further urged by the O.Ps through their written version that while sending the parcel to the complainant, he had not disclosed that the articles in the parcel were perishable in nature rather, he had mentioned those to be dress materials.  Accordingly, the complainant for non-disclosure of the perishable items is not entitled to get any compensation as per the provisions under Sec-170 of the post office Guide part-I.  After getting the complaint from the complainant on 11.5.21 and 11.6.21 the same was forwarded to the Senior Postmaster Mumbai Foreign Post Office for intimating the present status of the articles directly to the complainant, Manas Ranjan Nayak but the same was returned back with endorsement that “Not know returned to sender”.  A letter was issued to the PMGTMG(PG) office of the Postmaster General, Maharashtra endorsing the complaint of the complainant.  As such, the O.Ps have urged  through their written version that there was no deficiency in service on their part and that ultimately they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition.

3.            Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.i.

               Keeping in mind the definition as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act,2019 and while analysing the facts and circumstances of this case in hand, this Commission finds that undoubtedly the complainant, Manas Ranjan Nayak is a consumer who had hired the services of the Postal authorities for sending a parcel containing some articles regarding postnatal care of their grand child and daughter-in-law who reside at Rawanda alongwith their son.  The Postal authorities had accepted the parcel of the complainant at their service counter/College Square MDG and had also received the service charges of Rs.1690/- which was paid by the complainant for sending and delivering the parcel at Rawanda.  Thus, this case when filed under the C.P.Act is definitely maintainable as per the provisions of law envisaged in the C.P.Act.  This issue is accordingly answered.

Issue no.ii.

               When the complainant being a consumer had intended to send some articles for the postnatal care of his grand child and daughter-in-law and had sent the parcel on 19.12.20 through Document no.O100542494IN and when had paid the service charges of Rs.1690/- to the O.Ps, thereby the O.Ps had undertaken the responsibility of providing service by  carrying and delivering the parcel as intended by the complainant to his son and daughter-in-law and  grand child who reside at Kigali City,Rawanda.  Ofcourse there was unreasonable delay due to the disruption of the flight services during the Covid-19 pandemic period when there was no flight available to the said country but still then when normalcy resumed it is a catastrophe to think that the article had vanished without being delivered to the intended person at the intended place and not being returned to the sender/complainant and also without any valid reason the O.Ps had closed the complaint as filed by the complainant.  The O.Ps had undertaken the responsibility to deliver the article/parcel as sent by the complainant to the addressee and in worst case they should have returned the article/parcel to the complainant.   As it appears from the written version of the O.Ps the last tracking of the said parcel was “in transit” but they are unable to specify that if the said parcel was actually delivered or what had happened to it.  Thus, this Commission finds gross deficiency in service by the O.Ps and there agents by not delivering the articles to the intended person nor returning it back to the sender/complainant.  The O.Ps are therefore definitely found to be deficient in their service and are liable for the same.  This issue thus goes in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.iii.

               Keeping in mind he above discussions and from the facts and circumstances of this case together with the documents as available, it is concluded that the complainant is definitely entitled to the reliefs as prayed by him which are to be borne by the O.Ps of this case.   Ofcourse the complainant has admitted that some of the articles as sent by him were perishable drugs and as per the postal rules no compensation is to be granted for perishable items but as made out that there were other articles also apart from the perishable drugs which were garments for the grand child and daughter-in-law of the complainant and under no circumstances, those garments can be said to be perishable in nature.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                   ORDER

               The case is decreed on contest against all the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.   The O.Ps are thus directed to return to the complainant the service charges as taken from him on 19.12.2020 to the tune of Rs.1690/- together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the said date till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to bear the litigation expenses of the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as prayed by him together with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and loss.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th day of April,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

 

 

 

                                                                                                 Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                   Member