Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/184/2019

Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Dushyant Gera

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                             Sh.Rajbir singh, President                                                                         Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member

    

                                                Consumer Complaint No.  184 of 2019.                                                      Date of Institution           :   08.05.2019.

                                                Date of Decision            :   02.06.2023

 

Jaswant Singh son of Balbir Singh resident of village & Post Office Bhirdana Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                   …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.General Post Office, Fatehabad through its Post Master.

2.Government of India, Department of Posts, Office of Superintendent of Post Office, Hisar Postal Division, Hisar 125001 through its Superintendent.

 

                                                                   …Opposite Parties.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:                 Sh.Dushyant Gera, counsel for the complainant.

                             Representative on behalf of Ops.

                            

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                            

1.                          This complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short Act) against the OPs with the averments, inter-alia, that the complainant had purchased a mobile Realme 1 through amazon for a sum of Rs.8,990/-; that the said mobile was sent to Smt.Gurcharan Kaur at Canal Colony, Ferozpur through registered post vide parcel No.CH04550265IN on 28.07.2018; that when the parcel did not reach at its destination, the complainant made an enquiry and further visited the Ops on different dates but till today the parcel has not been delivered at the booked address; that due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of Ops, complainant had to suffer financial loss, mental agony, harassment besides other losses; that the act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          Upon notice, Ops No.1 & 2 appeared through their representative and contested the present complaint by filing joint reply wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted, on merits, inter-alia, that post offices are exempted by law from liability of loss, mis-delivery delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post vide Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898; that the complainant was asked to submit the original booking receipt/slip to award necessary compensation  but he failed to do so; that the post office is only liable for the sealed cover not for the article contain inside the cover;  that the valuable items are sent through insured post but the complainant sent it by ordinary registered parcel post. Other pleas made in the complainant have been controverted and it has been submitted that there is no deficiency in service; unfair trade practice etc. on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          The complainant has tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C5 in support of his contentions. On the other hand, the Ops  No.1 & 2 tendered evidence affidavit of Sh.Tara Chand Sharma, Superintendent Post Office, Hisar division as Annexure RW1/A.

4.                          We have heard final arguments from both sides and have gone through the case file minutely.

5.                          The grievance of the complainant is that he had booked a parcel containing mobile phone costing Rs.8,990/- to be delivered to Smt.Gurcharan Kaur at Canal Colony Ferozpur through registered post/parcel  (Annexure C3) on 28.07.2018 but till today it has not been delivered and in this regard learned counsel for the complainant drew the attention of this Commission towards Annexure C5 (status of Compliant No.10703800384) wherein it has been mentioned that the article has not yet been delivered and there is no update. In this very document it has also been mentioned that the complaint is closed without valid reason. Due to this lapse the complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony, harassment besides other losses.  

6.                          The defence of the Ops is that as per Post Office Act, the department cannot be held liable for any loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post as per Section 6 of Post Office Act, 1898 and further the complainant had sent the item in an ordinary registered parcel post, therefore, the Ops cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.                Before proceeding further, it is mandatory to know the difference between Speed post and Registered/ordinary parcel/post, which is as under:

Speed Post	Registered Post
Speed post is an India Post Service that offers secured and time bound delivery of letters, parcels and gifts.	Registered post is also an India Post Service similar to an ordinary post, but offers additional facilities like signature of the recipient, extra cover, a proof of delivery etc.

 

8.                In the reply, the Ops have admitted that the complainant had sent registered parcel and as per the above mentioned definition, the parcel falls within the definition of speed post, therefore, it should have been delivered to the consignee within a time bound period but perusal of Annexure C5 reveals that the booked parcel has not been delivered to the consignee till today and further the compliant of the complainant has already been closed. Therefore, we have no hitch to say the Ops are deficient in service and also found indulged in unfair trade practice in not delivering the booked parcel containing mobile phone to the consignee.  It was the duty of the Ops to deliver the parcel to the consignee with promptitude but they have failed to do so resulting into financial loss, mental agony any harassment to the complainant. Further, the plea of exemption raised by the Ops as per Section 6 of Post Office Act, 1898 is not applicable in the present case because Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi while deciding the Revision Petition No.309 of 2017 in case titled as Senior Superintendent of Post Office & Ors. Versus Rajnikant Sharma on 25.03.2019 has held that Section 6 of the Post Office Act is not applicable in the matter of speed post articles. Therefore, this plea is hereby rejected being not sustainable in the eyes of law.

9.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the considered view that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.  Hence, the present complaint deserves acceptance. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with a direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs,15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand only) in lump sum, towards mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant due to pursuing this matter for a long time before this Commission and also towards litigation expenses as well as the cost of mobile Rs.8990/- (Annexure C2). The Ops are further directed to refund Rs.52/- received by them at the time of booking of parcel as mentioned in the receipt Annexure C3. Compliance of this order be made a period of 45 days, failing which the awarded amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till its realisation.

10.              The liability of the Ops will be joint and several. In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 02.06.2023

 

                                                                                                        

                                  (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                                                                      Member                            President