Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/80

Jasvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

P.L. Dhaudhary

18 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       80

Date of Institution:   22.06.2015

Date of Decision :    18.01.2016

No. 15205934X L/NK (GD) Jasvir Singh 2 Medium Regiment (SP) (Pt 171 & Letse)  PIN 925702 c/o 56 APO.                                                 ...Complainant

Versus

1. Head Post Master, Post Office, Faridkot Punjab.

2. Superintendent of Post Office, Faridkot Division, Faridkot.

3. Union of India, through its Secretary to Govt. New Delhi.

       .............OPs                                                                                 

    

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

    

   Present:      Sh Parshotam Chaudhary, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                     Sh B S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

    

    (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops and for seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs 1982/- as cost of quilts and for further directing Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, for mental agony and harassment to complainant besides Rs.5,000/-as litigation expenses.

   2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased Sanganeri set of two cotton quilts with Gold Print-AKSO item 9778 from Aashi Gifts vide invoice no 846727/DN/0184493/2014-15 dt 26.02.2015 through DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd , Khasra No. 1226 Rajokri village New Delhi for Rs 1,898/-including courier charges. It is contended that articles sent by Aashi Gifts were not up to the satisfaction of complainant and complainant returned the same to seller through Post Office, Faridkot vide Postal Receipt dt 26.02.2015 and OPs charged Rs 84/-for this purpose from complainant. Articles returned by complainant did not reach the seller as they were lost in transit. Complainant wrote several letters to OPs, but they kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, vide letter dt 2.06.2015 informed complainant that articles sent by complainant through post are lost. Thereafter, complainant made many requests to OPs to make good the loss, but they refused to admit the claim of complainant. This act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-alongwith Rs 5000/-as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                          The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 01.07.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                               On receipt of notice, OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that under the provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898, Post Office is exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of any postal article. It is averred that services rendered by Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. By establishing post offices and running the postal service, the Central Government performs a Government function and government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges provided by the State for the payment of facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract and Post Office can not be equated with a common carrier. Moreover, complaint is not properly verified according to rules and orders and as such, is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OPs asserted that all the submissions and allegations made by complainant are incorrect, misleading and wrong and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. It is asserted that complainant got booked Registered Parcel no. CP128618578IN on 26.02.2015 with postal charges of Rs 84/-and said parcel did not reach its addressee as the same was lost in transit at destination office i.e Vasundra Enclave S.O. (Delhi). It is further averred that complainant made complaint to Post Master, Faridkot Head Office on 20.03.2015 and same was lodged on web bearing no. 151203-00331 on the same day. Thereafter, su Post Master Vasundra Enclave, S.O. replied on web that said parcel was lost at Vasundra Enclave SO and intimation regarding this fact was given to complainant on 2.06.2015 and further compensation memo of Rs 100/-was sanctioned in lieu of loss of parcel as per departmental rules by OPs on 11.06.2015 and OP-1 was asked to make payment to the complainant. After that, OP-1 vide letter dt 19.06.2015, sent the cheque to the complainant, who refused to accept the same. It is further averred that as per Departmental Rules, compensation of Rs 100/-was sanctioned to complainant in lieu of loss of parcel on 11.06.2015, but complainant refused to take the amount sanctioned by OP-1 and it was informed to him that compensation amount claimed by him cannot be reimbursed. It is reiterated that complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

5                                Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1/A and documents Ex C-1 to C-10 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                    In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Kamlesh Chauhan as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 5 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

   7                     Ld Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant purchased a set of cotton quilts worth Rs 1,898/- online from Ashi Gifts, New Delhi, which was delivered to him at Faridkot through courier, but these articles were not up to the satisfaction of complainant and he wanted to return the same to seller. For it, he booked a registered parcel in the name of seller at New Delhi through Post Office, Faridkot on 26.02.2015 and paid Rs 84/-as postal charges. The OPs issued receipt regarding it. Copy of the bill of cotton quilts is Ex C-2 and copy of postal receipt issued by OP-1 regarding booking of parcel is Ex C-1, but this parcel was not received by the seller at New Delhi and the same was lost in transit due to the negligence of OPs. The complainant wrote letters to OPs for enquiring regarding it and he also sought information under Right to Information act but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately vide letter dt 2.06.2015, they informed him that articles are lost in transit. Copy of the letter written by complainant to OPs is Ex C-4. Copy of letter written by OP-1 to Post Office at New Delhi is Ex C-5, copy of the information supplied under Right to Information act is Ex C-6 and copy of letter dt 2.06.2015 is Ex C-3. The complainant requested OPs many times to make good the loss caused to him due to the loss of parcel by OPs, but they refused to admit the genuine claim of the complainant which caused inconvenience, harassment and monitory loss to complainant. The complainant is entitled to get the price of the articles alongwith compensation. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. He prayed that present complaint may be allowed and OPs may be directed to pay the price of the articles booked by him alongwith postal charges received by OPs and compensation.

8                                              In reply to the arguments of the complainant, the ld counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant is not their consumer. Under the provision of Section 6 of Indian Postal Act 1898, Post Office is exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of any postal articles. The services rendered by Post Office are merely statuary and there is no contractual liability. By establishing the Post Officers and running the post service, the Central Government performs a Governmental function and Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the articles through post and the charges for article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges provided by the State for the payment of facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post office can not be equated with a common carrier. However, it is admitted that the complainant booked a registered parcel on 26.02.2015 with postal charges of Rs 84/-. The said parcel did not reach to addressee and the same was lost before the destination. They further admitted that the complainant made complaint regarding it to OP-1 and the same was lodged on the web on same day. Later on Post Master, Vasundhra Enclave, New Delhi replied that the said parcel was lost in transit and same was duly informed to complainant on 2.06.2015. He argued that a compensation memo of Rs 100/-was sanctioned in lieu of loss of parcel as per Departmental Rules by OPs on 11.06.2015 and OP-1 sent a cheque of Rs 100/-to complainant vide his letter dt 19.06.2015 but complainant refused to take the cheque. As per rules, the OPs have already sanctioned the compensation for the loss of parcel to the complainant, which he refused to accept. As per Departmental rules, the complainant is entitled only for compensation of Rs 100/-, which is already sanctioned. Except this amount, complainant cannot claim any other amount as compensation. Moreover, as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, Post Office is exempted from any liability for loss or delay or damage of any articles. So, complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and he is not entitled for any compensation or reimbursement for his loss of parcel. Therefore, present complaint may be dismissed.

9                                                      We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by complainant and opposite parties.

 10                                                  The case of the complainant is that he sent a set of cotton quilts worth Rs 1898/-to Ashi Gifts, New Delhi through registered parcel booked at Post Office, Faridkot on 26.02.2015 and paid Rs 84/-as postal charges, but said parcel did not reach the addressee and it was lost in transit, which is duly informed by Ops to him vide their letter dt 2.06.2015. Now, he is claiming the price of articles and compensation from OPs. In reply OPs, admitted that complainant booked a registered parcel with them, which was not delivered to addressee and was lost in transit but they are running from their liability for loss and they are taking shelter of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act vide which Post Office is immune from any loss, mis-delivery or damages to the postal articles. Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant booked a parcel through OPs, which is lost in transaction so, here is only one issue that whether OPs can take shelter of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act and are not liable to make good the loss occurred to complainant by non delivering the parcel and also for compensation for it or not? On it, the counsel for complainant has put reliance on the decision of our Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No.219 and 272 of 1992 decided on 19.07.1994 titled as Post Master General Tamil Nadu Vs Kalwin Jacob where our Hon’ble National Commission observed that Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section (2) (1) (g)- Post Office Act Section 6 – Postal Services – Section – 6 of the Post Office Act is not  barred against seeking relief under the Consumer Protection Act. He also put reliance on judgment passed by our Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 781 of 2010 decided on 31.03.2011 titled as Post Mast General, Kerala Vs Kiron Rasheed wherein our Hon’ble National Commission observed that the only substantive ground for challenge to the order of the Kerala State Disputes Redressal Commission is that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the RP/OP incurs no liability for loss, mis-delivery or damage/delay in delivery, except when caused fraudulently or wilfully. This ground was raised before, and examined in sufficient detail, in the impugned order. The State Commission has very rightly observed that this provision is not in any way connected with the modernized forms of transaction. The interview letter was sent to the complainant/respondent at Kollam, Kerala by Speed Post. It was sent on 16.08.2005, but delivered to him on 22.08.2005. As the interview was scheduled for 25.08.2005 at Delhi, the Complainant/Respondent was left with no choice but to travel by air, incurring extra expenditure. Therefore, both fora below have awarded the air ticket cost in favour of the Complainant. We are in agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. In the circumstances of this case, the delay in delivery of the communication, though sent by Speed Post, becomes the proximate cause for the expenditure on air travel. Therefore, the order of the District Forum to pay the cost of air ticket was well within its powers under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. He has also placed reliance on the citation 2011 (4) Consumer Law Today 174 titled as Superintendent of Post Offices, Jaipur Vs Babu Lal, where our Hon’ble Rajasthan State Commission observed that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g) and 14 (1) (d)-Post Office Act, Section 6–Registered letter – containing Bank draft not reaching destination – Deficiency in service – Compensation – Relying upon Section 6 of the Post Office Act plea by appellant – OP that its liability could not be more than Rs 100/-repelled – Appellant has not come out with his version as to where the registered letter got lost and who was responsible for that – The Appellant should have fixed up responsibility of that officer who was responsible for the loss of the postal article – There is no plausible explanation as to why the amount of Rs 100/-was not paid to the complainant although the sanction was issued long back – All these facts show that there has been deficiency in service of the Appellant. The order of District Forum to pay compensation of Rs 15,000/- and Rs 1500/-as cost of litigation upheld. He further put reliance on judgment 2011 (1) CLT 415 titled as Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division & Ors Vs Pradip Saha where Hon’ble West Bengal State Commission, Kolkata held that Consumer Protection act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g) and 14 (1) (d) – Post Office Act, 1898, Section 6 – Postal service – Registered letter – On the face of record, it has become clear that the Postal Authorities/its employees were responsible in delivering the registered letter to a wrong address – Question of getting protection u/s 6 of the Post Officer Act does not arise – Order of the District Forum allowing relief to the respondent-complainant upheld. He argued that in view of the decision of our Hon’ble National Commission and state Commission, the OPs can not take shelter of Section 6 of Post Office Act and they are liable to make good the loss caused to complainant and also for compensation. We have also gone through the judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Superintendent of Post Offices Vs Upovokta Surakshya Parisad held that in a number of cases we have noticed that the Postal department has been taking shelter under the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act which were enacted as far back as 1890 when the then Government of the day acquired total immunity for any action of the Postal Department resulting in a loss to the consumer. In fact, through this Section, the then government made the Postal Department totally immune from any accountability to the people whom it was serving for consideration, even if such service was subsidised in respect of certain categories of letters and postal articles etc. This provision made in 1890 in the Indian Postal Act is totally antiquated and out of tune with the spirit of a democratic Government in a parliamentary system where all actions of the Government functionaries are subject to scrutiny and all such functionaries are accountable for any lapse or misdeed on their part in the discharge of their duty. We therefore, feel that it is time that a comprehensive review of the Indian Postal Act is undertaken so as to incorporate suitable amendments and modifications to being it in tune with the functioning of a democratic and accountable Government.

11                                        From the above discussion and judgments and earlier view taken by our Hon’ble National Commission, we are of considered opinion that Ops cannot take shelter of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act and cannot escape from their liability to pay the price of the articles booked in parcel alongwith charges received by them and for compensation. So, the OPs are liable for deficiency in service and are negligent in their duties. The present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to pay Rs 1,898/- as price of parcel plus Rs 84/-received by them as postal charges alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date 26.02.2015 i.e when complainant got booked his parcel with OPs till final realization. Complainant is also held entitled to Rs 3,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs 2,000/-as litigation expenses. The OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 18.01.2016                         

  Member                 Member             President                (Parampal Kaur)    (P Singla)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)