By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            The case of the complainant is that complainant’s son Unni Suresh who got a scholarship for higher studies in Berlin, Germany, after his first appointment in August 2007 in Germany, when he got first salary he purchased certain items and sent it to his parents and grand mother in India through DHL courier service in Berlin.  The items were sent through DHL One i-pod, One CD Player, 2 wrist watches.  On 25-9-07 petitioner got intimation from Calicut Postal Department that they have received a damaged parcel at his address.  So the complainant went to the Civil Station Post Office and opened the parcel in front of the Post Master and other officials and  was found that all the items that sent were stolen from the packet.  The postal officials showed the petitioner a letter which was sent to the Post Master, Calicut  from Cochin Foreign Post saying that while checking at the foreign postal goods office at Cochin, above declared items were found to be stolen.  Therefore complainant seeking relief against opposite parties-1 and 2 directing to refund the actual price of the loss articles and to pay compensation for Rs.75000/-.

            Opposite parties-1 and 2 entered in appearance filed their version.  The postal department has not obtained anything whatsoever from the sender of the parcel or the complainant as a consideration for any services on behalf of DHL.  Consumer Protection Act is applicable only in the Union of India and any cause of action in a foreign country that has resulted in deficiency in service cannot have a bearing to the said Act.  The postal department of India cannot be termed as Branch Office of DHL of Germany, if Indian Postal Department has obtained any consideration from the complainant.  Therefore the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  More over it is admitted that parcel 193219 addressed to the complainant was received at Civil Station, Calicut Post Office on 25-9-07 through Cochin Foreign Post Office in a damaged condition.  Complainant was requested to call at the Post Office and take open delivery of the parcel.  Accordingly open delivery was effected on 25-9-07 itself.  On opening of the parcel it was found that the parcel contained only some journals pertaining to the Customs and Central excise department and some empty covers.  The complainant alleged that his son had actually sent two wrist watches, One CD player and one i-pod.  The parcel had reached in Delhi Foreign Post on 20-9-07.  It was also reported that when the parcel was opened for customs examination the items specified by the sender in the despatch, two wrist watches, One CD Player and One i-pod were not found in the parcel.  Enquiries also made at Foreign post on 11-9-07 and it was despatched to Cochin Foreign post on the next day.  However as the parcel had passed through various units without any challenge, the exact point where abstraction had taken place could not be established, under these circumstances complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            The points for consideration is (1)  Whether the complainant is a consumer?  (2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief, if so what is the relief?

            Complainant has no oral evidence.  Affidavit filed by the complainant.  Ext.A1 to A12 were marked on complainant’s side.  Opposite party has also no oral evidence.  Ext.B1 to B4 were marked on opposite parties’ side.

Point No.1:-

            Once the Foreign Parcel have been accepted for the postal department it is their duty to deliver the same to the addressee without any damage.  On reaching India the said parcel was in the custody of Indian Postal Department and it was presented for customs inspection in the presence of the Postal authorities.  Parcel service was handed over by DHL, Berlin to the Indian Postal Authority.  Therefore complainant is a consumer contemplated under Consumer Protection Act.

Point No.2:-

            Ext.A1 is the Power of Attorney filed on behalf of the complainant.  Ext.A2 letter received from the Assistant Director General (International Mails) reveals that there is a connection between DHL and Indian Postal Department.  Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 are the complaints submitted before the Postal Department.  Ext.A5 is the intimation regarding the enquiry before the Customs Commissioner. It shows that the parcel was under the custody of the postal department.  The same was opened by the postal authority in the presence of customs officers for customs clearance.  Therefore at no stage the customs officials had accepted the said parcel.  Exgt.A7 the receipt issued by the DHL from Berlin shows the items which are mentioned in the receipt.  Ext.A9 is the intimation of parcel received at Delhi International Airport.  Ext.A10 document issued by the Local Post Office regarding the missing articles.  Ext.A12 is the purchase bill issued from Germany for the missing articles.  Postal authorities failed to trace out the missing articles after a detailed investigation by the higher authority.  The act of the opposite party-1 and 2 is the gross negligence and careless act.  They are the service provider.   They should have at least taken minimum care to handle the parcel when it reached in India.  Being a reputed institution they cannot simply escape from the liability.  Ext.A2 is the clear admission that above mentioned items had reached New Delhi where it was misplaced or lost.  That fact opposite parties failed to disclose to the complainant.  Under these circumstances opposite party-1and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the lost articles.  The actual value of the lost articles were Rs.16960/-( 286 Uro x 60).  Therefore Opposite parties-1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.16960/- for the lost articles from the custody of the opposite parties and also to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.  Opposite parties are directed to comply the order within one month. 

Pronounced in the open court this the 10th day of March 2010.

                        Sd/-PRESIDENT                     Sd/-MEMBER             Sd/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant.

A1.  Power of Attorney.

A2.  Letter dt. 27-4-09 sent by O.P.1 to the complainant.

A3.  Letter sent by the complainant dt. 29-11-07 to O.P.1

A4.  Letter dt. 9-12-08 of intimation to DHL Courier, Germany.

A5.  Letter dt. 9-5-07 sent by Commissioner of Customs to the complainant.

A6.  Contents of the parcel disclosed before the complainant and the Postal authorities.

A7.  Receipt issued by DHL, Berlin.

A8.  Letter dt. 11-11-08 sent by O.P.1 to the complainant.

A9.  Letter dt. 14-12-07 sent by Commissioner of Customs to the complainant.

A10.Copy of document issued by Local Post office regarding the missing articles.

A11.Photocopy of Register of  letter mail articles detained for Customs examination.

A12.Photocopy of Purchase bill issued from Germany.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

B1.  Photocopy of the hperlink “UPU at a glance” in the Home page of the official web site

       of the UPU.

B2.  Photocopy of hyperlink “Postal administrations” in the Home page of the official

        Web site of UPU.

B3.  Photocopy of the relevant pages of the hyperlink “UPU Acts” in the official site of

       The UPU.

B4.  Photocopy of  letter of complaint dt. 29-11-07 sent by the complainant to the

       Director General Posts.

                                                                                    Sd/- President

                                    // True copy //

(Forwarded/By order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.