BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.53 of 2013/232 of 2015
Date of Instt. 4.2.2013/28.5.2015
Date of Decision :17.06.2015
Zordor Industries, Hoshiarpur Road, Near Lamba Pind Flyover, Jalandhar through its Partner Sukhraj Singh.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Department of Post, India Speed Post, Centre, Jalandhar through its Manager.
2. Deputy Chief Engineer/Transmission System B1, Shakti Vihar, PSPCL, Patiala.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.CS Matharu Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.Hukam Chand Adv., counsel for opposite party No.1.
Order
Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is a partnership firm dealing in electrical goods and Sukhraj Singh one of its partners is duly authorized to file the complaint and depose accordingly. The opposite party No.2 has been made proforma defendant as the drafts were to be duly delivered at their address and the same were later on delivered at the said address and lying blocked with opposite party No.2, as such, the opposite party No.2 has been made proforma defendant, moreover, no relief is being claimed against the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 had duly published an open e-tender notice in "Times of India" vide publication notice dated 1.12.2012, wherein the tenders were called from various parties and it was specifically stated into the notice that the last date and time for bid submission was 2.1.2013 and the time given was is 11.00 AM and for opening of the bid was the same day i.e 2.1.2013 at 11.30 AM. Since the tender were called through e-tendering website, as such, the complainant was supposed to make the payment of Rs.1000/- vide DD for the cost of the tender form. That in order to file the bid, the complainant was also supposed to attach demand draft in favour of PSPCL i.e opposite party No.2 and accordingly, the complainant vide draft No.405614 dated 26.12.2012 duly filed the draft of Rs.33,000/- alongwith a demand draft bearing No.405423 dated 4.12.2012 for an amount of Rs.1000/- as cost of the tender form as demanded by the opposite party No.2. Since the complainant had duly dispatched his tender/rate list alongwith the demand draft, referred to above, on 26.12.2012, the complainant in order to make sure that the same reaches well in time, as such, had taken due care and so cautiousness by sending the same through speed post vide bearing No.EP212487489IN dated 26.12.2012. As a matter of act, it is pertinent to mention here that on enquiry, it was revealed to the complainant by the postal authorities i.e opposite party No.1 that in case of sending the same through registered post, the average time given for reaching at its destination is 2-4 days and the cost for the same is Rs.22/- only and in case of urgency, the speed post is delivered on the next date of its dispatch. The complainant had duly opted for dispatching the said bid/rate list through speed post and for the said purpose he had paid an amount of Rs.40/- vide receipt No.EP212487489IN. To the utter dismay, the complainant came to know that his speed post did not reach with the opposite party No.2 within time and as such, he again enquired about the same and came to know that the same did not reach at the office of opposite party No.2 in time. Moreover, on 2.1.2013, The Department Chief Engineer/TS Officials telephonically informed the complainant that since his tender has not reached in Patiala office by 11.00 AM and in case it reaches upto 11.30 AM, on the same day even then it will be considered, but despite various telephonic calls and efforts the opposite party No.1 failed to deliver the same with the opposite party No.2, whereas, the office of opposite party No.2 was just about 1KM away from the Patiala, head Office Speed Post Office. So much so, the speed post on the very next date i.e 27.12.2012 reached the Patiala office of the opposite party No.1, but it had kept lying there for 9 days and no efforts were made to get it delivered at its destination as per the speed post receipt. The complainant is a consumer and the opposite party No.1 had duly provided its services to the complainant by charging Rs.40/- for the speed post and the opposite party No.1 as such, did not provide proper service and as such, there was deficiency of service on their part. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2 Lac alongwith interest. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that it is admitted that the articles were dispatched by the complainant from Jalandhar S.P.C, on the same day of the booking i.e 26.12.2012 and was received on the next day by the delivery office i.e Patiala Head Office showing no lapse of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. The complaint was also registered on the day of its receipt dated 2.1.2013 and was settled on 4.1.2013 and the articles were delivered on 3.1.2013. Since the articles were received by Patiala on the very next date of booking, so there is no deficiency in service at the ends of office of Sr.Post Master, Post Offices, Jalandhar City.
3. In its written reply, opposite party No.2 pleaded that the envelop containing draft was delivered in its office on 3.1.2013 which was due to be received on or before 1.00 AM on 2.1.2013. The tenders were opened and one tender whose DD for specified cost and earnest money has not been received, could not be opened which was required as per tender specification.
4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavits Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.PO1 and closed evidence.
6. This complaint was earlier dismissed vide order dated 8.8.2013 but in appeal the same has been remanded back to this Forum for deciding it on merits in accordance with law.
7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.1.
8. It is not disputed that complainant dispatched his tender/rate list alongwith the demand drafts on 26.12.2012 through speed post. The fact of dispatch of articles by the complainant is admitted by the opposite party No.1 in its written reply. In the reply it is also pleaded that dispatched articles were received on the next date by the delivery office i.e Patiala Head Office. In the reply, it is also pleaded that articles were delivered on 3.1.2013. So the articles sent by the complainant through speed post on 26.12.2012 were delivered on 3.1.2013 i.e after 8 days. So the articles sent from Jalandhar were delivered at Patiala after 8 days. Whether the delay occurred due to lapse on the part of the post office at Patiala or at some other place, the facts remains that the postal authorities were negligent and deficient in service in delivering the articles sent through speed post in time. The opposite party No.1 has not explained the delay satisfactorily. Counsel for the opposite party contended that as per circular of the postal authorities, opposite party is only liable to pay double the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- which ever is less. The departmental circular can not over ride the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. In Sr.Superintendent of Post Offices, Alwar Vs. Pushpendra Singh 2013(1) CPC 312, in some what similar circumstances the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-
"Let us come to the merits of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it was beyond the control of the opposite party to serve the letter upon the complainant. It is explained that there was agitation by the gujjars. He has placed news clips in order to support his case. He argued that under the circumstances, no negligence can be attributed to the respondent.
This is not a coherent argument. A person has to spend Rs.25/- in the hope that his application would reach the destination in time. Otherwise, the application could be sent through ordinary post, it would cost him Rs.5/- only. It is the duty of the State to see to it that the letter reaches within 24 hours or at the most within 48 hours from the date of its receipt. It is no part of the duty of subject to anticipate that the letter would not reach the destination due to agitation. The postal department should under all the probabilities, whether it is in its control or beyond its control, must see to it that the letters reach the destination in time.
The second submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 comes to the rescue of the respondent. He commented that there lies a rub for the consumer fora not to speak their mind in this context as they are not armed with this power.
This arguments, too, deserves no consideration. The post office is not supposed to play with the carrier of the citizens of the country. The letter sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent. If there is delay due to some agitation, it is the duty of the State to find out some other method to prevent the delay in such like matters. The District Forum was pleased to observe:-
"Section 6 not providing a windscreen to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc on their part of discharge of their official duties-Not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service on their party".
We are in full agreement with the abovesaid observation. The willful default on the part of the petitioner stand proved to the hilt. The petitioner's assumptions are all wet".
9. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable on the facts of the present case.
10. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.15000/- as compensation to the complainant and further Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
17.06.2015 Member Member President
