Complaint No: 295 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 16.09.2019.
Date of order: 06.11.2023.
Rajinder Kumar Son of Kishan Chand resident of Jail Road, Arya Nagar Gurdaspur.
At present R/o VICOLO I GENTILE 28 72020 CASSANO DELLE MURGE BA (Italy), through his Special Attorney Sh. Narinder Singh Son of Sh. Munsha Singh R/o Hardochhani Road, Hayat Nagar Colony, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 143521.
…..........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Head Post Office, Gurdaspur, through its Post Master. 143521.
2. Post Office Sohal through its Post Master.
3. Circular Post Office, Court Road, Rialto Chowk, Mohintra Colony, Amritsar- 143001.
4. Passport Sewa Kendra, Arora's Galaxy, Near Hotel Presidency Bus Stand Road, Hoshiarpur, Punjab, through its authorized officer. 146001.
….Opposite parties.
(Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act).
Present: For the complainant: Sh.Vishnu Sharma, Advocate.
For the opposite parties No.1 to 3: Sh.Vijay Kalia, Advocate.
For the opposite party No.4: Sh.Varun Gosain, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Rajinder Kumar, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Head Post Office Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the present complaint is being filed by Narinder Singh son of Sh. Munsha Singh R/o Hardochhani Road, Hayat Nagar Colony, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur being Special Attorney Holder of complainant Rajinder Kumar son of Kishan Chand as he is presently settled in Italy. It is submitted that the complainant is residing in Italy since 17 years and his family is also residing with him since one year. It is further submitted that in the year of 2019 the father of complainant died, therefore the complainant along with his family came to India on 30.06.2019 for performing last rites of his father. It is further pleaded that the complainant was to return back to Italy on 30.07.2019 and before coming to India, the complainant has purchased the return ticket as he was sure that he will definitely go back to Italy on 30.07.2019. It is further submitted that the passports of complainant, his wife and his son are going to expired therefore the complainant and his family members applied for new passports on 08.07.2019 and he has to appear before the Passport Authority to complete the entire procedure for getting the new passport on dated 09.07.2019. It is further submitted that on dated 09.07.2019 the complainant along with his family went to Passport Sewa Kendra Hoshiarpur and the concerned Passport Authority initiated the procedure for issuance of New Passport to complainant and his family. It is further pleaded that on dated 27.07.2019 the Passport of wife and son of complainant were received by hand from Post Office Gurdaspur which were dispatched by the Passport Office on 25.07.2019 as per message received on his mobile. It is further pleaded that the passport of the complainant could not be received by him due to negligence of Passport Office and Post Office. It is further pleaded that on enquiry, the concerned officials of Post Office Gurdaspur told the complainant that his passport has been sent to Post Office Sohal and when the complainant went to village Sohal and enquired about his passport, the postal officials assured to complainant that his passport will be delivered to complainant on dated 29.07.2019 at 10:00 A.M. It is further pleaded that on dated 29.07.2019 the complainant again contacted the concerned postal employee of village Sohal who told him that his passport has been returned to the Circular Post Office Amritsar. It is further pleaded that complainant also visited the Post Office Amritsar but he was told that his passport has not yet received by them. It is further pleaded that complainant also checked the online status of his passport. It is further pleaded that due to this deficiency in service by the opposite parties, the complainant could not return back on 30.07.2019 to Italy on his return ticket and money has been wasted due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that complainant again purchased the ticket of worth Rs.1,15,136/-. It is further pleaded that the complainant has faced huge loss of money as he could not join his duty within time. It is further pleaded that complainant has been harassed and humiliated by the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that complainant has faced the loss earlier when he purchased return ticket and could not go back on the same as his ticket was non-refundable and the complainant again purchased the ticket. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to Pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as loss suffered by him which has been caused by the opposite parties due to their negligent act and conduct and deficiency in service and remove the grievance of the complainant. The opposite parties may please be further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as damages compensation due to physical and mental harassment caused to complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and filed the present complaint by concealing the true facts. It is further pleaded that this Hon'ble Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint and the complainant has dragged the answering opposite parties into false and frivolous litigation, hence they are liable to be burdened with exemplary costs. It is pleaded that The Speed Post article Passport No. PP861407123IN booked on 25.07.2019 at Jalandhar City HO and received at Amritsar National Sorting Hub on 26.07.2019. It is further pleaded that said article received at Sohal Sub Post Office on 27.07.2019 as Missent and Sub Postmaster Sohal redirected the said article to Gurdaspur Head Post Office and dispatched to Amritsar Sorting Hub on the very same day of receipt of Speed Post Bag No. EBP0005772919. It is further pleaded that Amritsar National Sorting Hub received above said Speed Post Bag on 31.07.2019 and dispatched said article to Gurdaspur Head Post Office on 31.07.2019. It is further pleaded that said article received at Gurdaspur Head Post Office on 01.08.2019 and delivered to address on 01.08.2019. It is further pleaded that as per Indian Post Office Act 1898 Chapter I Section 6, The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far such liability may in express term be undertaken by the Central Govt. as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. It is further pleaded that in WPC No. 312 of 2015 of Postmaster, Main Post Office, Jagdalpur, District Baster (CG) & others Vs. Rajesh NAG and Permanent Lok Adalat, Baster, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the Post Office is not liable to pay damages for delay in delivery of Speed Post of postal articles.
On merits, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party No.4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed qua the opposite party and the complainant is neither consumer under the provisions of section 2 (1) (d) of the 1986 Act nor the opposite party is provider of service as the function is required to be exercised under the provisions of passport Act which is sovereign function. It is further pleaded that the issue of passport is not consumer dispute. It is pleaded that the passport of the complainant Rajinder Kumar was also sent in time. Late receipt of passport by the complainant was not on account of the answering opposite party.
On merits, the opposite party No.4 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Narinder Singh, (Being Special Attorney of Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-23.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Parkash Singh, (Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1to3/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1to3/2 to Ex.OP-1to3/3.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has filed an affidavit of Sh. Sat Pal, (Assistant, Superintendent of Passport Office, Jalandhar) as Ex.OP-4/1 alongwith reply.
8. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
9. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 but not filed by the complainant and opposite party No.4.
10. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is residing in Italy for the last 17 years and in the year 2019 father of complainant died and thereafter complainant alongwith his family came to India on 30.06.2019 for the rites of his father and complainant was scheduled to return back to Italy on 30.07.2019 and before coming to India complainant had purchased the return ticket for going back on 30.07.2019. It is further argued that since the passports of the complainant and his wife and son were going to expire, as such had applied for new passports on 08.07.2019 and appeared before the passport authority and visited Passport Sewa Kendra Hoshiarpur for the said purpose. It is further argued that on 27.07.2019 the passports of wife and son of complainant were received by hand from post office Gurdaspur which was dispatched by the passport office on 25.07.2019 as per message received but the passport of the complainant could not be received by the complainant due to negligence of opposite parties No.1 to 3. On enquiry complainant was told that his passport was sent to Post Office Sohal and when complainant went to Post Office Sohal, it was told that the same has been sent to Circular Post Office Amritsar and Circular Post Office Amritsar reverted back that the passport has not been received by them. It is further argued that due to negligent act and conduct of the opposite party complainant could not go back on 30.07.2019 which was scheduled date as per return tickets and the money was wasted and complainant had to purchased a new tickets by spending Rs.1,15,136/- and complainant also suffered loss of his job on daily basis.
11. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has argued that this Commission has got no jurisdiction. It is further argued that speed post article was booked on 25.07.2019 at Jalandhar received at Amritsar National Sorting Hub on 26.07.2019 received on Sohal Sub Post Office on 27.07.2019 as missent and was redirected to Gurdaspur to Gurdaspur head office and thereby dispatched to Amritsar and was sent back to Gurdaspur head office on 31.07.2019 and delivered to the addressee on 01.08.2019. It is further argued that as per Indian Post Office Act, 1898 Chapter I Section 6, The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any post article in course of transmission by post, except in so far such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Govt. and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
12. Counsel for the opposite party No.4 has argued that as per section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act there is no relationship of consumer and service provider and as such complaint is not maintainable. It is further argued that issuance of passports by opposite party No.4 is soveregn function and by no means falls under Consumer Protection Act.
13. To prove his case complainant has placed on record affidavit of Narinder Singh special power of attorney of the complainant Ex.CW-1/A, Special Power of Attorney executed by the complainant Ex.C1, copies of passports Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, copies of identity cards Ex.C6 to Ex.C8, copies of tickets of Air Line Ex.C9 to Ex.C11, copies of online appointment receipts Ex.C12 to Ex.C14, copies of receipts Ex.C15 to Ex.C17, copies of messages Ex.C18 to Ex.C20, copies of track consignment Ex.C21 and Ex.C22, copy of air line ticket of 09.08.2019 Ex.C23, whereas counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has placed on record affidavit of Parkash Singh Senior Supdt. Ex.OP-1to3/1, copy of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh Ex.OP-1to 3/2, copy of track consignment Ex.OP-1to3/3. Counsel for the opposite party No.4 has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Sat Pal Asstt. Supdt. Ex.OP-4/1.
14. It is admitted fact that complainant is residing in Italy alongwith his family. It has come on record that complainant had visited India and was scheduled to got back to Italy on 30.07.2019 which is proved form ticket Ex.C9. It is proved on record that complainant and his family members had applied for renewal of their passports with opposite party No.4 and were given appointment by opposite party No.4 on 09.07.2019 and it is further admitted fact that passports were prepared and dispatched by the opposite party No.4 on 25.07.2019 which fact is also proved from the message Ex.C18. It is further admitted fact that passport of wife and son of the complainant were received by the complainant on 27.07.2019. It is further admitted fact that passport of the complainant which was also scheduled to be delivered at the same address where other two passports were delivered was not delivered to the complainant on 27.7.2019 and same was received by the complainant on 01.08.2019. Perusal of file shows that opposite parties No.1 to 3 have not been able to explain why the passport of the complainant was not delivered on 27.07.2019 when other two passports dispatched for the same address were delivered correctly at the given address and only excuse given by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 is that the said article was received at post office Sohal on 27.07.2019 as missent. However, opposite parties No.1 to 3 have not been able to explain what was the reason for missent. As such we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant suffered huge loss of tickets and for already scheduled flight of 30.07.2019 due to negligent and willful deficiency on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3. The other excuse taken by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 is that as per Indian Post Office Act 1898 Chapter I Section 6, The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any post article in course of transmission by post, except in so far such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Govt. and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. But we are of the view that the opposite parties No.1 to 3 have failed to explain regarding non delivery of article i.e. passport of the complainant which is willful default and negligent act on the part of employees of opposite parties No.1 to 3.
15. We have placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.666 of 2012, D/d. 15.01.2014 in case titled as Kumari Meena Vs. Post Master, Sub Post Office Awagarh & Ors. wherein it is held as under:-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(g) and 21 - Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Section 6 - Service - Deficiency in - Cheque was deposited with respondent No.1 - Amount was not deposited in account - Cheque in question was returned after validity period of six months - District Forum held deficiency in service on part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and ordered to pay amount - Appeal - Allowed and complaint was dismissed by State Commission - Held, provisions of Section 6 are not applicable - Impugned order of State Commission is set aside and order of District Forum is restored.
As per this judgment the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it is held that it is case of deficiency in service on the part of postal authority in regard to handling of a cheque deposited by the account holder in her saving account. This being undisputed factual position, section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 which provides exemption from liability loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of postal article will not be applicable to the present case and the postal authority held liable to pay compensation to the complainant in above referred case by the Hon'ble National Commission New Delhi.
16. We have further placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.264 of 2019, D/d. 08.05.2019 in case titled as West Bengal Vs. Dr.Sasadhar Panda wherein it is held as under:-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g) and 21(b) Post Office Act, 1898, Sections 6 and 48(c) - Complaint alleging deficiency in service - Money order - Post Master General admitted delay of 2 months in payment due to some technical problem - Money order was made by complainant to honour his word to his relative to pay some money for latter's daughter's marriage ceremony - Sections 6 and 48(c) of Act, 1989 do not provide a blanket immunity - In respect of "large number" of claims being made, correct approach would be for Post Office to inculate systemic improvements and imbibe responsibility and accountability - Revision petition dismissed". (Paras 14, 16, 17 and 19).
17. We have also placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.468 of 2018, D/d. 19.09.2018 in case titled as Post Office, Hisar. Vs. Dilwan Singh wherein it is held as under:-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) and 21(b) Post Office Act, 1898, Section 6 - Delay in delivery of post - District Forum allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant and directed opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation - Appeal filed in the state commission dismissed - Hence this revision petition - Person who is beneficiary of services would also be a consumer and may file a complaint provided there is approval from the main person availing the services - As Speed Post service was availed of by the Registrar of High Court for sending the postal article to the complainant, the approval is obvious - Therefore, the complainant was a consumer - Both the fora below have given concurrent finding and have allowed the compensation of Rs.30,000/- for loss and injury to the complainant - Due to negligence of the employee of the petitioner - No reason to interfere - Revision dismissed". (Paras 2,15, 20 and 21).
18. Perusal of file shows that complainant had purchased second ticket Ex.C23 by having spent amount of Rs.1,15,136/- with scheduled date of departure 09.08.2019 which shows that complainant and his family could not leave India for 10 days unnecessary due to negligent act of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 and as such opposite parties No.1 to 3 are definitely liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the purchase of second ticket i.e. Rs.1,15,136/- and also pay compensation to the complainant for loss of job for 10 days in Italy i.e. from 30.07.2019 to 09.08.2019. As far as the liability of opposite party No.4 is concern perusal of copies of the passports Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 which were issued on 25.7.2019 and were promptly dispatched to the passport holders on the same day. As such we do not find any negligence or delay in duty on the part of opposite party No.4.
19. From the above referred discussion and by relying upon the above judgments of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, we partly allow the present complaint against opposite parties No.1 to 3 and opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.1,15,136/- to the complainant towards the cost of second ticket Ex.C23 and further pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the loss of work w.e.f. 30.07.2019 to 09.08.2019 alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and Rs.20,000/- for mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation. Complaint against opposite party No.4 is dismissed. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
20. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
21. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Nov. 06, 2023 Member.
*YP*
