Haryana

Rohtak

CC/20/421

Jitender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head of the Office/Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. V.K. Budhwar

03 Mar 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rohtak.
Haryana.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/20/421
( Date of Filing : 01 Oct 2020 )
 
1. Jitender Singh
S/o Mahabir Singh R/o Village Bhali Anandpur District Rohtak.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Head of the Office/Post Office
Head Main Post Office, Rohtak/Post Master.
2. PTC Post Office Sunarian,
(Office Incharge) Sub Post Master, District Rohtak/ S.P.M.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Nagender Singh Kadian PRESIDENT
  Mrs. Tripti Pannu MEMBER
  Sh. Vijender Singh MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 03 Mar 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 421

                                                          Instituted on     : 01.10.2020

                                                          Decided on       : 03.03.2023

 

Jitender Singh  age 40 years, son of Mahabir Singh resident of Village Bhali Anandpur District Rohtak. .

                                                                   ………..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

 

  1. Head of the office/Post office, Head Main Post Office, Rohtak/Post Master.
  2. PTC Post Office Sunarian, (Office Incharge) Sub Post Master, District Rohtak/SPM.

……….Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

 

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh.V.K.Budhwar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Tilak Raj IPO(IT) Rohtak  for opposite party No.1& 2.

                                       

                                      ORDER

 

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

 

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is retired as Army personnel and during his service in Jammu and Kashmir he applied for an Armed License as per law. Before the expiry date of armed license he applied for renewal of his armed license from District Collector Poonch, Jammu. After the entire procedure the office of District collector Poonch, dispatched his renewed license through registered post vide consignment no.RE8067683931N on dated 06.08.2020. Complainant immediately contacted the respondents and they told that the entire bag has been lost. The armed license is very important valuable and secret documents which is lost by the respondent department and anyone can misuse the same. The complainant incurred an amount of Rs.20000/- for renewal of his Armed License. The respondents are liable to pay the expenses of Rs.20000/- incurred by the complainant. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 09.09.2020 through his counsel to the respondents but no action was taken by the respondents. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to search the consignment of the complainant and also to pay Rs.50000/- on account of mental and physical harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in its reply has submitted that it is admitted to the extent that as per tracking, the consignment                    No. RE806768393IN  was dispatched by booking office(Meghdoot Bhawan Post Office, Jammu) on 06.08.2020. It is also admitted that the consignment No.RE806768393IN has been lost during transit but the Department of post under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is exempted from all responsibility in case of loss, delay or damages in course of transmission by post. Also, Department of Posts deals with closed/sealed envelopes not the content of the envelopes. If article is lost, the sender of the article may apply for the compensation.  The compensation may be provided to the sender of the article as per departmental rule. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondents and dismissal of complaint has been sought.    

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 25.08.2021. On the other hand, Sh. Rajeev IPO Rohtak tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence on dated 28.10.2021.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that he had applied for renewal of his armed license from District Collector Poonch, Jammu and the alleged office dispatched his license to the opposite parties but the opposite parties lost his alleged valuable document. As such he has sought compensation from the opposite parties. Ld. counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance upon  the judgment dated 10.01.2020 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Post Master, Post Office Vs. Ripan Kumar.  On the other hand, it is admitted by the opposite parties in their written statement that the consignment No. RE806768393IN was dispatched by booking office(Meghdoot Bhawan Post Office, Jammu) on 06.08.2020 and the same has been lost during transit. It is further contended that the Department of post under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is exempted from all responsibility in case of loss, delay or damages in course of transmission by post.  Opposite party has also placed reliance upon the letter dated 22.01.1999 of the department as per which it is submitted that : “In the event of loss of a Speed Post article, loss of contents of damage to the contents, the compensation payable to the customer will be double the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- whichever is less”. Opposite party further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in revision petition no.986 of 1996 titled as Post Master, Imphal & Others Vs. Dr. Jamini Dvi Sagolband.

6.                After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the opposite parties have taken the defence of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 that  in case of any loss, delay or damages to any postal article in course of transmission by post, opposite party is exempted from all liabilities. On the other hand, as per the law cited above by ld. counsel for the complainant in case titled as Ripan Kumar(Supra), Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Section 6 does not intend to provide an unfettered licence to the officials of the Postal Department for inefficiency and mismanagement or to cause loss and injury to its ‘consumer’(s).  The aforesaid law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and as such opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for losing his valuable document. On the other hand, law cited by opposite party in case titled as Post Master. Vs. Dr. Jamini(Supra) and the letter dated 22.01.1999 are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite parties shall also be liable to pay Rs.50/- per week to the complainant from the date of decision  till its realization to the complainant.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

21.02.2023

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

 

                                                         

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

 

                                               

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Vijender Singh, Member.

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Nagender Singh Kadian]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Mrs. Tripti Pannu]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Sh. Vijender Singh]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.