Haryana

Ambala

CC/323/2013

BHUPINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HEAD POST MASTER - Opp.Party(s)

SUDHIR SEHGAL

05 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                                   Complaint Case No. :    323 of 2013

      Date of Institution    :     04.12.2013

                                                        Date of Decision      :     05.10.2016

Bhupinder Singh S/o Sh. Balinder Singh R/o H.No.K-4, Jail Officers Colony, Ambala City.

……Complainant.

Versus

Head Post Master, Head Post office, Main Branch, Ambala City.

……Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. R.K. Sobti, PRI for OP.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that  on 22.10.2013 complainant send a parcel through Speed Post from Kutchery Post Office, Complainant has filed the present complaint contending therein that  to his son Nishant C/o M.M. Chhitora, C-20 Indra Vihar, Kota. The parcel was having   one Railway Ticket bearing No.47137592 dated 01.11.2013 from Kota to Ambala Cantt in the naming his son. It has been contended that on 29.10.2013,  complainant received a  message from his son that  the parcel  had not received by him. So, complainant contacted Op and apprised the fact that the parcel so sent through them has not been received by the addresses but  the Op did  not give satisfactory reply and ticket under Tatkal Kota was also not available so his son had to come Ambala in very difficulties by exchanging number of vehicles  and thereby suffered mental shock and harassment which cannot compensated in terms of money.  A registered legal notice got served upon the OP on 31.10.2013 but of no avail. Thus the complainant has prayed that OP is guilty of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, the present complaint.

 

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objection qua non-maintainability of complainant that Section 6 exempts post office from any liability for loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal articles in the course of transmission by post office except to such extent, as the liability may be under taken by the Govt. in express terms.  This section is equally applicable to the articles sent by  Speed Post for which provision have been made under Indian Post Office Rules 1933 by inserting Rule No.66B.  These rules were further amended by notification GSR 40(E) dated 21.01.1999 which inserted the following conditions after conditions No.(5) of Rule 66B.  “In case of any delay of domestic speed post article beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to composite speed post charge paid. In the event of loss of domestic speed post  articles or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/- whichever is less”. On merits, Op has admitted that the speed post  was booked at Ambala City Head Post Officer on 22.10.2013 and a sum of Rs.39 was charged as postage. It has been submitted that the said article was dispatched to its destination on the same day but the article in question was not received at Ambala RMS and thereby it reveals that the article under reference has been lost in transit.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-4 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, representative for Op tendered affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Chander, Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Ambala as Anenxure RX alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.  

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. Counsel for complainant argued that the parcel sent through speed post  through Op on 22.10.2013 in which he had sent a railway ticket amounting to Rs.335/- dated 01.11.2013 to his son for journey  from Kota to Ambala Cantt not received to him.  Complainant to prove his case placed on record copy of railway ticket as Annexure C-1 and Copy of postal receipt as Annexure C-2.  To strengthen his case, counsel for complainant has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Alwar Vs. Pushpendra Singh reported in 2013(1) CLT Pg. 328 wherein it has been rendered that  ‘Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1(g), 2(1)(o), 14(1)(d),21(b)-Postal Services-Applications  invited for the posts of Sub-Inspectors in Rajasthan Police-Application sent by the complainant through speed post on 28.12.2010 and incurred Rs.25 on sending the same-Application could not reach the destination till 31.12.2010 i.e. the last day for applying but on 04.01.2011-Envelope received back by the complainant on 12.01.2011 with remarks “time-barred”-complaint filed before District Forum-Allowed-Appeal against the order dismised by the State Commission-Hence, Revision Petition with delay of 71 days-Contention that there was agitation by Gujjars and thus it was beyond the control of opposite party to serve  the letter-Held, 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 post office is not supposed to play with the career of the citizens of the country-The letters sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent. If there is delay due to  some agitation, it is the duty of  state to find out some other method to prevent the delay in such like matters-District Forum observed’ Section 6, not providing a windscreen  to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction, etc, on their part in discharge of their official duties.  Held we are in full agreement with the abovesaid observation. The willful default on the part of petition stands proved to the hilt”

                        On the other hand, representative of Op has disputed that the article was sent through speed post but not through a parcel. He further argued that  under the gazette notification, if any parcel or letter or any speed post articles lost in transit, they  are liable to pay double of the amount of the postage paid  but not beyond it.  He placed reliance of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and a judgment delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 29.08.2005 titled as Union of India & Ors. Vs. R.C.Paul.

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for complainant and the representative of OP, it is not disputed by the OP that the speed post was booked by the complainant but it did not reach to its destination. So, referring Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the OP has already placed a cheque bearing no.801625 of Rs.78/- dated 06.12.2013 on the file to hand over the complainant but  the complainant has not received the same rather insist for compensation for harassment & mental agony which has to suffer while coming from Kota to Ambala Cantt by changing several vehicles.

                        Further, on perusal of document Annexure R-1 i.e. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 so tendered by Ops, it does not give blanket immunity to the Ops for the loss, mis-delivery or delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post rather clearly speaks that in case of willful act or default by officers of Post office, they shall have no such exemption.  The contention of complainant is quite right that he has to suffer a lot in coming from Kota to Ambala Cantt by changing many vehicle and thereby cause mental and physical harassment. As such,  we hold that the Op is negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. So, the argument put forth by the Ops does not find place especially in light of the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Alwar (supra). So, we allow the present complaint and direct the Op to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the date of communication of this order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation costs etc.

 

                                    Further the award must be complied with by the Ops within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default.  The cheque bearing No.801625 of Rs.78/- dated 06.12.2013 placed on the file by Op for handing over same to the complainant be returned to OP against proper receipt and identification.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

                                                                                                               Sd/-

Announced On:05.10.2016                                                        (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT    

 

                                           Sd/-

                     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                                MEMBER