Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1504/2015

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Department of Post - Opp.Party(s)

Shri V.K. Singla

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                             

                                                Complaint No.  1504

                                                Instituted on:    20.11.2015

                                                Decided on:       23.08.2016

 

Rakesh Kumar Singla son of Shri Sham Lal Singla, President of VOICE Organization (Regd) and Shiv Bhole Langer Committee (Regd) Head Office Bye Pass Road, Lehragaga, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Department of Posts, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Chief Post Master General.

2.             Senior Superintendent of Posts, Sangrur.

3.             Sub Post Office, Gaga Road, Lehragaga-148 031 District Sangrur through its Post Master.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri V.K.Singla, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Sachin Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Rakesh Kumar Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the President of NGO Shiv Bhole Langer Committee Lehragagga, which organises langer to the yatris during Shri Amar Nath Yatra for the last more than 22 years and that the complainant provides free parshad of Shri Amar Nath Yatra to the devotees throughout India.  The case of the complainant is that on 18.9.2014, the complainant sent the parsad in 100/150 packets through registered parcel from the sub post office, Gaga Road, Lehragaga against proper postal receipts to various persons.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that on 15.10.2014, one Baldev Kumar son of Bhagwan Dass, resident of 64, Vijay Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Hisar came to the office of the complainant and handed over a torn packet sent to him through registered post vide CP1090306341N and further stated that he received the torn packet in damaged condition on 10.10.2014, as such, the complainant was shocked to see all this. The complainant had gone through the same and its weight was only 200 grams although the same was sent for 740 grams.  Further the complainant received another packed back sent through registered post vide CP113976415IN on 18.9.2014 to Mr. Anil Kumar son of Shri Darshan Lal, resident of House No.32/39, Navi Abadi, Sirhind Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib, which was received on 17.12.2014 after a long delay, which is said to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation on account of humiliation, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable under section 6 of the Indian post Office Act, that the remedy under section 3 of the CPA is in addition to and not in derogation of the exist act in force, that the postal services provided by the Government extend throughout the territory of India and abroad. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the registered parcel number CP109030634IN having weight of 740 grams was booked at Gaga Road, Lehragagga post office on 18.9.2014 and the same was despatched on the same day in good and sound condition. As per the report of SPOs Hissar, the registered parcel was delivered in the safe and sound condition to the addressee on 10.10.2014 and the other allegations are denied.  Further it is admitted that registered parcel number CP113976415IN was booked on 18.09.2014 and the same was despatched to its destination in its safe and sound condition on the same day, but the parcel in question could not be delivered for want of complete address.  The Sirhind post office returned the same due to unavoidable circumstances. As such any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-2 copy of reply of legal notice, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-8 affidavit,  Ex.C-9 copy of parcel sent to Anil Kumar, Ex.C-10 copy of parcel sent to Baldev Kumar, Ex.C-11 original parcel sent to Anil Kumar, Ex.C-12 original parcel sent to Baldev Kumar and Ex.C-13 is the affidavit of Baldev Khattar and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter dated 3.3.2015, Ex.OP-3 copy of delivery receipt dated 10.10.2014, Ex.OP-4 affidavit of Mahender Singh, Ex.OP-5 affidavit of Mohinder Singh and closed  evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact of the parties that the complainant got booked two parcel which were to be delivered to one Baldev Kumar son of Bhagwan Dass of Hissar and another to one Anil Kumar son of Shri Darshan Lal of Sirhind.

7.             First of all, coming to the point of delivery of the parcel to one Baldev Kumar, which was got booked on 18.09.2014.  The complainant has alleged that the parcel sent to Baldev Kumar was delivered in the torn condition and the weight was also of 200 grams, when the same was delivered, whereas at the time of booking, its weight was 740 grams.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the same was delivered in the sealed condition as it is to the addressee.  We may mention that the complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence to show that the packet in question was delivered to the addressee Baldev Kumar in the torn condition, whereas on the other hand, the OPs have produced on record the document Ex.OP-3 (delivery sheet) and a bare perusal of it nowhere reveals that the same was delivered to the addressee Baldev Kumar in torn condition.  Further to support this contention, the OPs has also produced the affidavit of Mahender Singh postman to corroborate this contention, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish on record that the parcel was delivered to Baldev Kumar in the torn condition and its weight was less than the booked one.

 

8.             Another grievance of the complainant is that admittedly though he booked the parcel with the OPs on 18.9.2014 under receipt number CP113976415IN which was to be delivered to one Shri Anil Kumar son of Shri Darshan Lal of Sirhind Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib, but the same was not delivered to the addressee rather the same was returned back to the complainant after a long period i.e. on 17.12.2014.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OPs are not only deficient in service but also are negligent by not returning the packet in question in time rather the same was returned to the complainant after a long delay of 90 days.  A bare perusal of the written reply shows that the Ops have not taken any definite stand rather has stated that “it may be possible that the addressee was not available at the given address and might have shifted at some other address and the negihbourers may not have told the new address to the postman. The registered parcel was returned by Sirhind office due to unavoidable reasons. The postman on duty could not have any interest in returning the registered parcel. Moreover, the parcel has been duly returned to the complainant in safe and sound condition.”  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the Ops that there may be some reason in not delivering the parcel to the addressee, but the fact remains that the parcel was returned to the complainant after a long delay of 90 days of its original booking.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why they kept the parcel for such a long period of 90 days, as the parcel was containing the bhog, obviously, the same becomes unfit for human consumption.  We have also perused the affidavit of Mohinder Singh, postman of post office Sirhind, wherein it is again mentioned that the addressee might have shifted to some other address other than the one mentioned on the parcel, but the fact remains that the parcel was returned to the complainant after a period of 90 days, for which there is no explanation from the side of the OPs, as such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on this count.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

10                    This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 23, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                            (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member