Delhi

North East

CC/19/2018

Sh. Anand Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Department of Posts Office of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.19/18

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Anand Kumar S/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar R/o C-4/54, Dayal Pur, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	Department of Posts Office of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Delhi East Division Delhi-110051	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

19.01.2018 08.02.2023 06.04.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that he had purchased a mobile phone make Xiami Redmi Note 4 64 GB Internal Memory and he sent the same mobile phone to Hafizur Barghuiya, DC Office Hailu Kanti Treasury, Haila Kandi-788181, Assam through speed post vide tracing no. ED298816175IN. The said mobile phone was not delivered to the addressee and the Complainant made a complaint dated 16.05.2017 but no action was taken by the Opposite Party. On inquiry, it was revealed that the addressee refused to accept the parcel as the parcel was in bad condition. Thereafter, the said parcel was returned back to the Complainant. The Complainant opened the same and it was found that the mobile phone was missing and one jacket was found inside the parcel. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party admitted its fault. The Complainant lodged a claim on the prescribed performa for a compensation of Rs. 13,999/-. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 13,999/- along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental pain and agony. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is the case of the Opposite Party is that as per the Gazzette of India, vide  notification no. 26 Extraordinary Part-II of section 3 sub section (1) GSR 40 (E), published on 21.01.1999, in case of the loss of the domestic speed post article the compensation to be paid to the Complainant is double the amount of speed post charges or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is less. It is the case of the Opposite Party that the Complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation and the Complainant has already been offered the compensation according to the above notification. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Ms.  Annu Paul, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Delhi East Division. In affidavit, she has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone make Xiami Redmi Note 4 64 GB Internal Memory and the same was sent by him to Hafizur Barghuiya, DC Office Hailu Kanti Treasury, Haila Kandi-788181, Assam by speed post. It is his case that the said phone was not received by the addressee as the parcel was in a bad condition. It is his case that the said parcel was returned to him wherein he found one jacket instead of the mobile phone which was sent by him.
7. The first question is that whether the Complainant had purchased the mobile phone in question. He has not filed on record any invoice/bill regarding the purchase of the said mobile phone. Further the Complainant was supposed to disclose the contents of the parcel and was also supposed to get it insured at the time of sending the same through the Postal Department but the same was not done by the Complainant.
8.  The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in order dated 11.09.2013 in revision petition no. 4567 of 2012 has held as under:-

 “10. This Commission consisting of four members Bench in the case of The Presidency Post Master and another vs. Dr. U. Shankar Rao, revision petition No. 175 of 2000 and 247 of 192 decided on 15.04.1993 was pleased to hold that “service rendered by the Post office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability establishing the Post Office and running the postal service the Central Government performs a government function and the Government does not engage commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for the 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 consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with the common carries.”

 

9. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in order dated 09.10.2017 in revision petition no. 3125 of 2016 has held as under:

 

“ 7. In other words, the view adopted in all these decisions is that the relationship between the sender of a postal article and the post office is governed by the Indian Post Office Act that not by law of contract or tort. There is no liability at all for loss or non-delivery of a postal article except in so far as the specifically provided by the statute under Section 33 and Section 6 or any other regulation or rule.

 

          A further question is because this Commission deals with cases of deficiency of services, does the sender of a postal packet acquire any special right under this Act? The answer has to be in the negative. There cannot be any special right against the express provision of the statutes”.

 

“The scope of Section 6 was once again examined by this Commission in the case of The Presidency Post Master Vs. Dr. U. Shankar Rao, II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC). In this case an argument was made that the provision of Consumer Protection Act was not fettered by the provisions of any other Act. It is an additional remedy and, therefore, delay in delivery of postal article or non-delivery of postal articles which causes a loss to a complainant can be redressed by this Commission. This argument was negative by holding “After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that the argument of the learned counsel for the respective Revision Petitioner has force. It was rightly argued that Section 3 of the Act clearly lays down that the provisions of the Act are in addition to but not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This shows that the Act provides additional means of obtaining remedy by  a consumer but if the remedy is barred under any other Act, then the various forums constituted under the Act cannot grant the remedy prayed for”.

 

The Commission also referred and explained the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and held that the complaint petitions were not maintainable against the Presidency Post Master and Another in view of the Act and that section.

 

       In the case of Senior Postmaster, G.P.O Pune Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat & Anr. A registered parcel sent from Pune to Mau was lost in transit. It was not delivered to the addressee. A case of negligence in the service was brought against the postal department and the Senior Postmaster, G.P.O Pune. The complaint was entertained and damage was awarded by the District Forum, which was upheld by the State Commission. This Commission, however, reversed the decision by holding that Section 6 bars the claim of the complainant. There was no allegation that the article was lost due to fraudulent or wilful act of the official against whom the action was brought unless these are alleged and proved by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief by way of compensation for loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to a postal article in the course of its transmission. The complaint, therefore, was held liable to be dismissed”.

 

10.  In view of the above discussed facts and case law, no merit is found in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
11. Order announced on 06.04.23

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President