Complaint No: 235 of 2021.
Date of Institution: 09.11.2021.
Date of order: 16.02.2024.
Deepak Mahajan Son of Sh. Surinder Pal Mahajan, resident of Bazar House No. 288 Bazar Taragarhi Gate, Dinanagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
…........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. India Government Mint Mumbai, Shahid Bhagat Singh Fort, Mumbai – 400001, through its General Manager. (SPMCIL)
2. The Chief Post Master, General Maharashtra Circle, 2nd Floor General Post Office, Mumbai – 400001.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Ms.Meena Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Sarthak Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Deepak Mahajan, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against India Government Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant booked commemorative coins set and make the payment through his bank account, Canara Bank Branch Dinanagar. So, the complainant is a consumer and has a right to file the present complaint against the opposite parties. It is pleaded that the complainant applied for proof set coin i.e. 125 years of National Archives of India (Denomination of 125 & 10) amounting to Rs.3,975/- quantity one, university of Mysore Centenary Celebration (Denomination of 100 & 5) amounting to Rs.3,975/- quantity one, Shree Jagannath Nabakelabara 2015 (Denomination of 100 & 10) amounting to Rs.4,295/- quantity one set on order form and payment of the same were made through demand draft No. 729792 dated 03.01.2019 through Canara Bank Branch Dinanagar amounting to Rs.12,245/-. It is further pleaded that the acknowledgement was given to the complainant by the opposite party No. 1 vide receipt No. 61906 letter dated 06.02.2019, dated 01.02.2019 for amounting to Rs.12,245/- DD No. 722792 Canara Bank on account of order 2102938 - (1)-P-1, U-0, (2)-P-1, U-0, (3)-P-1,U-0. It is further pleaded that the complainant has wait for approximately 1 year when the complainant did not received the booked coin for a long time then the complainant moved an application to the opposite party No. 1 for non-receiving the commemorative coin set 1000 year of Shree Jagannath Nabakelabara. Thereafter, the complainant on dated 21.09.2020 sent a Registered letter to the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant has not received a proof coin namely Shree Jaganath Nabakelabara 2015 (Denomination of 1000 & 10) amounting to Rs.4,295/-. The opposite party No. 1 sent a reply on dated 01.10.2020 to the letter of complainant that the opposite party No. 1 has already been dispatched on dated 24.06.2019 the commemorative coin sets of 1000 years of Shree Jaganath Nabakelabara by GPO through Speed Post bar Code No. EM986907315 IN to the complainant. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No. 1 sent a proof coin set to the complainant through registered insured parcel, yet same was not received by the complainant. After receiving the letter of the opposite party No. 1 on dated 01.10.2020, the complainant went to post office, Dinanagar and enquire the matter about the proof set of coin, the officials of the post office, Dinanagar informed the complainant that the alleged parcel is insured parcel yet same was not received by the complainant and same could not be misplaced, also informed to the complainant that he has no right to lodged a complaint in regard to the non-receiving the said insured parcel because the complainant is recipient in case the insure parcel misplaced then sender has a right to file a complaint within the jurisdiction at Mumbai. It is further pleaded that thereafter on dated 23.10.2020 the complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party No. 1 and informed regard to the non-receiving the proof set coin parcel. The opposite party No. 1 in reply to the letter dated 23.10.2020 sent a letter to the complainant vide letter endorsement No. V17/WMR/939/2020 on dated 10.11.2020 in regard to non-receipt of the commemorative coin set ordered and informed to the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 corresponded through Mumbai mint Letter No.V-17/884/WMR/2020 on dated 02.11.2020 to the director, department of parcel, Grievance Section, General Post Office, Mumbai. When Mumbai mint receives update, they will inform the same to the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant after receiving the letter dated 10.11.2020, sent a reminder to the opposite party No. 1 through registered post for non-receipt of the proof set coins. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 informed to the complainant through letter dated 08.12.2020 that the opposite party No. 1 has issued a letter to the director of department of parcel Grievance section, general post office Mumbai on dated 02.11.2020. It is further pleaded that again on dated 06.07.2021 the opposite party No. 1 informed to the complainant about the correspondence between the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No. 2 that the opposite party No. 1 issued a letter to the Chief Post Master General i.e. the opposite party No. 2 by the opposite party No. 1 about the non-receipt of the commemorative coin set 1000 years of Shree Jaganath Nabakelabara by the complainant and requested to look into the matter and solve the problem and refund an insured amount of Rs.4,551/- to the opposite party No. 1. It is further pleaded that on dated 16.07.2021 the complainant received a letter from the opposite party No. 1 in which the opposite party No. 1 dispose off the complaint of the complainant by mentioning the bogus reason that as per the department rule any speed post article related complaint should be lodged within 90 (Ninety) days from the date of booking of the article. Therefore, the complaint is time barred as the said article is booked before 90 days. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the terms and condition mention in the order form, there is no time has been mention about the time period for the filing the complaint in case misplacing the parcel. It is further pleaded that the facts and circumstances narrated in the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering proper service to the complainant and the officials of the opposite parties acted negligently and carelessly in dealing with the case of the complainant. At present the market value of the booked coin increased. 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. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in services 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 make the payment as per the present market value of the booked coins of commemorative coin set 1000 years of Shree Jaganath Nabakelabara alongwith the actual amount paid by the complainant amounting to Rs.12,245/- alongwith 18% interest and further prayed that further direction may kindly be issued to the opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental pain and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses and deficiency in service to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant is not consumer in the present Commission and the present complaint is not maintainable, because the complaint filed by complainant is time barred. Moreover, there is no allegation leveled by the complainant against the answering opposite party No. 1. It is pleaded that this Ld. Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and the present complaint is based on false and baseless facts, hence the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the complainant moved an application to the answering opposite party No. 1 for non-receiving the commemorative coin set, 1000 year of Shree Jagannaath Nabakalebaraand. On dated 21.09.2020 sent a registered letter to the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant has not received a proof coin namely Shree Jaganath Nabakalabara 2015 (Denomination of 1000 & 10) amounting to Rs.4,295/-. The opposite party No. 1 sent a reply on dated 01.10.2020 to the letter of the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 has already been dispatched on dated 24.06.2019, the commemorative coin sets of 1000 years of Shree Jaganath Nabakalebara by GPO through Speed Post bar Code No. EM986907315 IN to the complainant. It is correct that the answering opposite party No. 1 sent a proof coin set to the complainant through registered insured parcel. However, it is wrong that the same was not received by the complainant, yet. It is also wrong for want of knowledge that after receiving the letter of the opposite party No. 1 on dated 01.10.2020, the complainant went to post office, Dinanagar and enquire the matter about the proof set of coin or that officials of the post office, Dinanagar informed the complainant that the alleged parcel is insured parcel yet same was not received by the complainant and same could not be misplaced or that they also informed to the complainant that he has no right to lodged a complaint in regard to the non-receiving the said insured parcel because the complainant is recipient in case the insure parcel misplaced then sender has a right to file a complaint within the jurisdiction at Mumbai. It is further pleaded that thereafter on dated 23.10.2020 the complainant sent а registered letter to the opposite party No. 1 and informed regarding the non-receiving the proof set coin parcel. The answering opposite party No. 1 in reply to the letter dated 23.10.2020 sent a letter to the complainant vide letter endorsement No.V17/WMR/939/2020 on dated 10.11.2020 in regard to non-receipt of the commemorative coin set ordered and informed to the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 corresponded through Mumbai mint letter No.V-17/884/WMR/2020 on dated 02.11.2020 to the director, department of parcel, Grievance section, General post office, Mumbai – 400001. When Mumbai mint will receive update, they will inform the same to the complainant. It is further pleaded that another letter as reminder was received and thereafter the answering opposite party No. 1 informed to the complainant through letter dated 08.12.2020 that the opposite party No. 1 has issued a letter to the director of department of parcel Grievance section, general post office Mumbai – 400001 on dated 02.11.2020. It is further pleaded that on dated 16.07.2021, the complainant received a letter from the answering opposite party No. 1, but it is wrong that in which the opposite party No. 1 dispose off the complaint of the complainant by mentioning the bogus reason, that as per the department rule any speed post article related complaint should be lodged within 90 (Ninety) days from the date of booking of the article. Rather the reason assigned was on the basis of information received by the answering opposite party No. 1 from Dy. Director (BD) Section vide letter dated 14.07.2021. It is further pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the answering opposite party No. 1 and this is clear from the facts mentioned in complaint itself and correspondence of the answering opposite party No. 1 with the complainant. It is further pleaded that heavy onus be put on complainant to prove the fact that market value of the booked coin has increased and there is no cause of action worth contesting against the answering opposite party No.1.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 has 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 qua the answering opposite party No.1.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party No. 2 and the present complaint is barred by the law of limitation. It is pleaded that a Speed Post insured Article No. EM986907315 IN was booked at Mumbai GPO BPC on dated 24.06.2019, addressed to the complainant Mr. Deepak Mahajan S/o Surinder Pal Mahajan, House No. 288, Bazar Taragarhi Gate Dinanagar, Gurdaspur, Punjab – 143531, and sent by India Government Mint, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road Mumbai – 400001. It is further pleaded that said transaction of buying and selling of the commemorative coins has taken place between the complainant and the sender i.e. the opposite party No. 1. The answering opposite party No. 2 is only a medium through which the coins were sent. The Speed post insured article was further dispatched to invoice on dated 24.06.2019 at 19.50 hours from Mumbai GPO BPC with clearly indicating as "Insured", it was further dispatched in Speed bag closed for Mumbai NSH, through Mail Motor schedule AT-7 on dated 24.06.2019 at 20.15 hours. It is further pleaded that the complaint was received from the sender of the Insured article i.e. the opposite party No. 1 (India Government Mint) vide letter No.V-17/884/WMR/2020 on dated 02.11.2020, which was received by the answering opposite party No. 2 as on dated 13.11.2020. The opposite party No. 1 approached to the answering opposite party No. 2 (i.e. Post Office Mumbai GPO) with complaint of non-receipt of Insured article on dated 13.11.2020 i.e. after lapse of 16 months from booking date. It is further pleaded that in accordance with Rule 81 of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 made under The Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the complaint has to be lodged within 3 months from the date of booking of the article. In this case, the opposite party No.1 has lodged the complaint vide letter dated 02.11.2020 which was received by the answering opposite party No. 2 as on dated 13.11.2020 i.e. after delay of more than one year and four months. Hence, the complaint was time barred. The answering opposite party No. 2 thus informed the Sender accordingly vide letter No. DD/BD/SPA/Insured/Complaint/EM986907315IN/21-22 dated 12.07.2021. The record preservation period of Speed Post Delivery List is of 6 months in accordance with the Govt. of India, Department of Posts, letter No. 32-121/99- BDD dated 26.04.2002. Hence, the complaint of the opposite party No. 1 could not be dealt or processed further due to non-availability of records. It is further pleaded that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party No. 2. The enquiry made in this office revealed that, the Article No. EM986907315 IN booked in this office (Mumbai GPO BPC) on dated 24.06.2019. It was closed in Bag No. EBM0013257798 and dispatched to Mumbai NSH on same day. Also, as per Section 33 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, liability in respect of Postal articles insured is subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Central Government may, by rule, prescribe. It is further pleaded that the complaint of the sender was disposed off due to time barred in accordance with Postal Departmental Rules made under The Indian Post Office Act, 1898. As per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, it is mentioned that, ‘the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force’.
On merits, the opposite party No.2 has 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 qua the answering opposite party No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Deepak Mahajan, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Shoaib Shaikh, (Dy General Manager (Marketing), India Govt. Mint, Mumbai) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/18 alongwith reply.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of M.C. Meena S/o Ratti Ram Meena, (Superintendent of Post Offices) as Ex.OPW-2/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 alongwith reply.
8. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
9. Written arguments filed by the opposite party No.2, but not filed by the complainant and opposite party No.1.
10. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had booked commemorative coins set i.e. 125 years of National Archives of India (Denomination of 125 & 10) amounting to Rs.3,975/- quantity one, university of Mysore Centenary Celebration (Denomination of 100 & 5) amounting to Rs.3,975/- quantity one, Shree Jagannath Nabakelabara 2015 (Denomination of 100 & 10) amounting to Rs.4,295/- quantity one set and payment of Rs.12,245/- was made to the opposite party No.1. It is further argued that even after expiry of one year the complainant had not received the booked coins on which complainant had written letter dated 21.09.2020 which was replied on 01.10.2020 by opposite party No.1 that the ordered coins sets have dispatched on 24.06.2019. Thereafter, complainant went to post office Dinanagar to enquire about the receipt of the parcel but the said parcel was not received by the complainant and thereafter complainant had written another letter dated 23.10.2020 to opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 had taken up the matter with the department of post and in this way complainant never received the booked coins and suffered net loss due to negligence on the part of both the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service. Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.666 of 2012 titled as Kumari Meena. Vs. Post Master, Sub Post Office Awagarh & Ors. decided on 15.01.2014. Order of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Shimla) reported in 1999(1) C.P.J. 24. Order of Hon'ble Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Dehradun) reported in 2011(2) C.P.J. 444. Order of Orisa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Cuttack) Appeal No.1 of 1997 decided on 30.08.2005 case titled as Head Post Office. Vs. Basanta Sahoo.
11. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that complaint filed by the complainant is miserably time barred as coins were booked on 03.01.2019 and limitation to file the present complaint expired on 04.01.2021 and no application for condonation of delay has been filed. However, it is admitted that complainant had booked commemorative coins set and made payment and the complainant had lodged complaint with the opposite party No.1 regarding non receipt of commemorative coins set of 1000 years of Shree Jagannaath Nabakalebaraand through registered insured parcel. The matter was taken up with the postal department but postal department had not given any positive reply and the deficiency in service if any is of opposite party No.2.
12. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that complaint is time barred. It is argued that opposite party No.2 is only medium through which coins were sent and the speed post insured article was further dispatched to invoice on 24.06.2019 from Mumbai GPO BPC with clearly indicating as insured. It is further admitted by the counsel that complaint was received from the sender i.e. opposite party No.1 after lapse of 16 months from the booking date. It is further argued that as per Rule 81 of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 made under the Indian Post Office Act 1898 the complaint was required to be lodged within three months from the date of booking of the article and as such complaint was time barred. Accordingly, complaint cannot be delt with due to non availability of record and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
14. It is admitted fact that complainant had booked proof commemorative coins set i.e. 125 years of National Archives of India (Denomination of 125 & 10) amounting to Rs.3,975/- quantity one, university of Mysore Centenary Celebration (Denomination of 100 & 5) amounting to Rs.3,975/- quantity one, Shree Jagannath Nabakelabara 2015 (Denomination of 100 & 10) amounting to Rs.4,295/- quantity one set and had paid Rs.12,245/- to opposite party No.1. It is further admitted fact that opposite party No.1 had dispatched commemorative coins set on 24.06.2019 through registered post insured parcel. It is further admitted fact that complainant had not received commemorative coins set of 1000 year of Shree Jagannath Nabakelabara. The only disputed issue is whether the loss of commemorative coins set amounts to deficiency in service and whether the complainant is entitled to receive compensation if yes from whom.
15. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of order form Ex.C1, copy of cheque Ex.C2, copy of acknowledgment Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 21.09.2020 Ex.C4, copy of reply Ex.C5, copy of letter dated 23.10.2020 Ex.C6, copy of letter dated 10.11.2020 Ex.C7, copy of letter dated 02.11.2020 Ex.C8, copy of reminder Ex.C9, copy of letter dated 06.07.2021 Ex.C10, copy of letter dated 16.07.2021 Ex.C11 and copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C12 whereas opposite party No.1 has placed on record affidavit of Shoaib Shaikh Ex.OPW-1/A, copy of dispatch detail Ex.OP-1/1 and Ex.OP-1/2, copy of dispatch detail Ex.OP-1/3 and Ex.OP-1/4, copies of letters Ex.OP-1/5 to Ex.OP-1/18. Opposite party No.2 has placed on record affidavit of M.C. Meena Ex.OPW-2/A, copy of Indian Post Office Rules Ex.OP1, copy of reply Ex.OP-2, copy of instructions Ex.OP-3 and copy Post Office Act Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5.
16. Perusal of order form Ex.C1 shows that complainant had placed order of commemorative coins and made payment through demand draft which was duly acknowledged by opposite party No.1 vide Ex.C3 on -1.02.2019. For the first time complaint regarding non receipt of Shree Jaganath Nabakelabara 2015 (Denomination of 1000 & 10) was sent on 21.09.2020 and thereafter opposite party No.1 had given speed post bar code to the complainant and thereafter matter was taken up with department of post as per Ex.C7 and thereafter correspondence between complainant and opposite parties was made and in the end it was proved on record that the parcel by way of which coins were dispatched has been lost and the opposite party No.2 postal department had closed the complaint being time barred by taking shelter of provisions of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and document Ex.OP-3 as per which time limit of three months is prescribed for lodging of the complaint. Although, the complainnant has got amended the complaint and prayed for compensation of Rs.12,245/- which is total cost of all the set of coins but perusal of record shows that the entire claim of the complainant was in respect of commemorative coins set 1000 year of Shree Jaganath Nabakelabara and there is reference of the same in letters Ex.C4 and Ex.C6. Moreover, opposite party No.1 has vide its letter Ex.C8 requested the opposite party No.2 to refund Rs.4551/- to India Government Mint for one set of 1000 year of Shree Jaganath Nabakelabara. As such it is proved on record that only one proof set of 1000 year of Shree Jaganath Nabakelabara was lost with insured value of Rs.4551/- .
17. As far as liability in respect of lost coins is concerned. We are of the view that opposite party No.2 cannot escape from its liability by taking shelter of letter Ex.OP-3 but we are of the further view that said provision of law maximum body of the state organ have provided for the just efficient and responsible public servant for whom deficiency might have been occurred but in the present case opposite party No.2 had simply closed the case being time barred and no effort was made to fix responsibility of its own employee who misappropriate the coins which were not received by the complainant.
18. We are also relied upon judgment of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Shimla) reported in 1999(1) C.P.J. 24. and Hon'ble Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Dehradun) reported in 2011(2) C.P.J. 444. As such we are of the view that since the dispatch of Shree Jaganath Nabakelabara commemorative coins set 1000 year is proved on record and non receipt of the same is also proved on record. As such opposite party No.2 cannot escape from its liability to indemnify the loss of the complainant as the parcel was admittedly insured one.
19. As far as the plea of opposite parties regarding complaint being time barred is concerned. Perusal of file shows that order was placed by the complainant on 03.01.2019 and complaint regarding non receipt for the first time on 21.09.2020 and thereafter the correspondence continue upto 16.07.2021 and as such the cause of action for filing the complaint was continued one and concurrent one and complaint cannot be held to be time barred.
20. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay the cost of insured amount of Rs.4551/- for one commemorative coins set of 1000 years of Shree Jaganath Nabakelabara to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of dispatch i.e. 24.06.2019 till realization. Since the complainant has definitely suffered mental agony, harassment and has to undergo through agony of litigation as such opposite party No.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to complainant. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
21. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
22. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 16, 2024 Member.
*YP*
