BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (DISTRICT COMMISSION), BISHNUPUR, MANIPUR

C. C.  Case No.  1   of  2021

            Shri Dheeraj Singh Moirangthem, aged 21 years, S/o. M. Romit  Singh,  a resident of Moirang Phiwangbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur.

                                                                                                ..... Complainant.

                                         - VERSUS -

1.         The Department of Posts represented by its Director General Postal Services, DG Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 and 5 others.

. . . Opposite parties.

                                                                  PRESENT

1. Shri Y. Lokendro Singh, President

2. Smt. S. Shadhana Devi, Member

3. Shri S. Devananda Singh, Member

For the complainant               :    Oinam Ratan Kumar, Seityandra, A. Peter,   Ch. Ranjit, M. Shanta, L. Dikho, Advocates

For the opposite parties          :    S. Samarjit, S. Jesobanta, I. Somorjit, N Suraj, Sumitra, K.R. Panmei, Advocates.

Date of hearing                       : 23-06-2022

Date of Judgement                  : 29-06-2022

ORDER

1.         The sad news of loss of goods was recieved by the complainant after a torn parcel reached to his father M. Rohit Singh from the post office. The  parcel containing shirts, shoes, sporting apparels etc was sent to his father M. Romit Singh at Moirang, Manipur through post office from Margaon, Goa. The complainant files a complaint on a bonafide belief that the goods were found lost due to fraud or wilful act or default of the employees of postal department.

2.         The OPs. had contested the complaint by filing their written version wherein it is stated that section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act protected them and Postal Department cannot be made liable for any compensation.

3.         In order to resolve the dispute, we have examined  (i) complaint  supported by affidavit and documents; (ii) written version supported by affidavit. We heard both the Ld Counsel for the complainant and for OPs.  Written arguments were also filed by the parties.  The Ld Counsel for the OPs. argued that section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act protected them and can be compensated a maximum amount of Rs. 500/- for the losses. After appreciating the material on record, it could however, be not disputed that there are lost some articles from the parcel. But the Superintendent of Post Offices, Manipur Division, did not make an enquiry or processed about the complaint lodged by the father of the complainant for loss of some items of parcel sent to him.

4.         It is evident from a reading of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, it does not give blank immunity to any officer of the Post Office and if the postal letter or article is not delivered due to fraud, wilful act, default of the postal employees, the Post Office would be liable to pay the damages. The postal article concerned remain in the custody of the postal department till it is delivered to the addressee and therefore, it has the exclusive knowledge as to what happened to that article. The parcel sent by the complainant, some valuable goods has been taken away from the said parcel while it was in postal custody.

5.         We have to see from a consumer point of view as to what is wilful or default when interpreting a particular provision. As a matter of fact, loss of articles in sending the parcel could also be a wilful act. No circumstances has been brought on record by the OPs to show that there has not been any wilful act or default on the part of any of its officers. If a postal employee steals the goods from the parcel, it would not be covered under section 6 of the Act and post office shall be liable for the loss. The postal department has committed a criminal breach of trust of the worse type. Instead of taking action against its officer for their default and wilful act, the OPs. stated that they are protected by section 6 of the Act. For this gross act of default or wilful act of loss of articles in sending parcel after recieving charges of the same, complainant has certainly suffered a great deal of anguish and mental harassment. Time has come when it should be impressed upon every person employed in postal department that the loss caused to parcel entrusted to the department is not only a loss to an individual but also to the society at large as public confidence is being shaken to the detriment of the entire society.

6.         The Consumer Protection Act came into being in the year 1986 (now the Consumer Protection Act in 2019) with the sole aim to protect the interest of the consumer by providing a cheap and quick remedy. There can be no dispute that the postal department has undertaken to provide postal service to the people and every person has a right to avail its service by paying the requisite consideration in the form of postal charges. The postal service has been included in it as a service and any deficiency in this service shall have to meet with compensation to the consumer as defined under section 2(11) and 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

7.         Now the matter remains regarding the relief claimed by the complainant.  The OPs. shall refund the cost of lost articles amounting to Rs. 41,000/-. The OPs. shall also compensate the complainant with an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- for causing mental agony and loss to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- is also awarded as the cost of the complaint. Finally the OPs is directed to pay  a sum of Rs. 2,11,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order.

            The complaint is allowed to the extent indicated.

            Announced.

  Member.                                                 Member.                                             President.