BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 103 of 2019
Date of Institution : 05.03.2019
Date of Decision : 06.08.2019
Jai Bharteshwar @ Kewat Kumar Singla son of Shri Guljari Lal, resident of Bata Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- India Post through Post Office Department, Sirsa.
- Head Post Master, Main Post Office, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT.
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL…..MEMBER
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……… MEMBER
Present: Sh. Aashish Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Naveen Sharma, Public Relation Inspector (Postal) on behalf of opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant has purchased some ladies suit for marriage purposes on the asking of his relative namely Ghisa Ram Sanjay Kumar resident of Siliguri. The complainant purchased the suits from M/s Singla Cloth House, Barnala road, Sirsa vide three different parcels as fully detailed in invoice numbers 603 and 604 dated 10.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.36382.50, 607 dated 12.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.24202.50 and 610 and 611 dated 13.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.37065/-. It is further averred that all the above three parcels were to be sent by the complainant to his relatives Ghisa Ram and Sanjay Kumar through the ops from Sirsa to Silliguri and were booked on 13.10.2018. The parcel no.1 for Rs.36382.50 was registered vide receipt no.CH032894129IN weighing 11430 grams with postal charges of Rs.393/-. The parcel no.3 for Rs.37065/- was registered vide receipt no.CH032894132IN weighing 11700 grams with postal charges of Rs.409/-. The parcel no.2 for Rs.24202.50 was registered vide receipt no.CH032894234IN weighing 12450 grams with postal charges of Rs.425/-. It is further averred that all the three parcels were handed over to op no.2 at Sirsa for delivery of the same to Silliguri-734001 at the address Mr. Ghisa Ram Sanjay Kumar 2nd Floor, Krishna Kunj Building, near opposite Atta Chakki, Punjabi Para, Silliguri (WB). The ops assured the complainant about the safe delivery of all the above three parcels and it was only because of this assurance that the complainant opted to send the same through the ops, although the courier service in the market was providing delivery of the same at much cheaper price. It is further averred that after few days, the recipient of the parcel complained him that they have received only one consignment for Rs.24,202.50 which was sent via consignment No.CH032894234IN but they have not received the other two parcels. The complainant checked the status of the parcels online and found that it is showing dispatch of the parcels up to Faridabad and there is no information available online thereafter. The complainant immediately contacted at the office of the ops at Sirsa and asked about the same whereupon he was again assured about delivery of the same and was asked to wait for 2-3 days more. That after 2-3 days, when the parcels were not delivered to the recipient, the complainant lodged a complaint with the online Public Grievance Portal of Government of India as well as raised an issue/ complaint at the website of the India Post i.e. the ops. The said complaint was kept pending for months long and it was lastly on 5.1.2019 that the complaint of complainant in this regard lodged with the ops was closed with an admission on the part of ops qua article no.3 i.e. CH032894132IN that the same has been lost in transit. However, the another complaint regarding article no.1 is still pending. That the complainant again contacted at the office of op no.2 in this regard to raise a claim regarding compensation of the invoice amount for the goods sent through these two undelivered consignments but the op no.2 did not pay any heed to this lawful and genuine request of the complainant. It is further averred that complainant is entitled to amount of Rs.73447.50 of the said two parcels besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and also litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties, that complainant has no locus standi as he has not hired the services of answering ops, that complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of notice under Section 80 CPC, which is mandatory in nature, that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that complainant has not exhausted the Department Channels available to him. It is submitted that Government (answering ops) is providing only obligatory services at a heavy subsidized rate with nominal taken charges and without any commercial gain. The complainant is not a consumer in the strictest sense as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The relation between the complainant and the ops is only statutory. It is further submitted that post offices are exempted by law from liability of loss, mis delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post under Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 and Rule 84 of Post office Guide Part-1. It is further submitted that Department of Post is not liable for any type of compensation if a registered article contained any valuable thing the insurance of which is compulsory. The complainant has not sent the contents through insured registered parcel. Department of Post deals only with the sealed covers and not for contents. Contents of any postal article are not known by the Department. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as Sh. Naveen Kumar, Public Relation Inspector (Postal) on behalf of opposite parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of complainant that complainant had sent three parcels of suits/ clothes to his relative namely Ghisa Ram Sanjay Kumar through the opposite parties from Sirsa to Silliguri vide three receipts No. CH032894129IN, CH032894132IN and CH032894234IN through registered posts on payment of Rs.393/-, Rs.409 and Rs.425/- respectively. It has also been contended that out of three parcels, one parcel has been delivered to the consignee/ addressee and remaining two parcels have not been delivered till date. The ops have also admitted this fact regarding non delivery of two parcels. It is clear case of willful default and gross negligence of the officials of the ops. As per the follow up track of the parcels, parcels were found to be at Faridabad and thereafter there is further no detail of the status of the parcels. The complainant is entitled to the costs for the loss of the parcels as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and loss to his reputation and also amount of Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. Learned counsel for complainant has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission in cases titled as Supdt. of Post and Telegraph Department Circle at Solan vs. M.L. Gupta, 2009 (1) CPJ 132, Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bangalore vs. Manjit Kaur Sodhi, 2012 (2) CPJ 427, Post Master General vs. Dipak Banerjee & Anr. 2015 (3) CPR 648 and also decision of the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Head Post Master/ post office Railway Road Kurukshetra & Ors. Vs. Vijay Rattan Aggarwal, 1997 (1) CPC 259 and decision of Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula in case titled as Senior Superintendent, Post Office, Gurgaon and others vs. Raja Ram, 2018 (3) CLT 161.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Naveen Kumar, Public Relation Inspector (Postal) of the ops has strongly contended that no doubt three parcels were got sent through registered post on payment of charges by the complainant, but however, out of these three parcels, one parcel has been delivered and other two parcels have not been delivered and same are untraceable despite best efforts of the officials of the ops. He has relied upon provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act, 1898 and Rule 84 of the Post Office Guide Part-1 which provides exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post. He has further contended that as per Section 81 of the PM Volume VIII, if a registered article contain any valuable thing, insurance of the same is compulsory. He has also contended that ops only discharged statutory function on behalf of the Union of India and are not service providers and are not earning body. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of officials of ops and ops are not liable to pay any compensation on account of loss of the parcels. He has further contended that complainant has not disclosed the valuation of the parcels at the time of their dispatch nor he got the parcels insured with any insurance company in order to cover risk of loss of the parcels. He has further contended that there is no liability of the ops to pay any amount as compensation on account of the loss of parcels as well as for harassment etc.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for complainant as well as Sh. Naveen Kumar, PRIP and gone through the record carefully and also judgments relied upon by learned counsel for complainant.
8. It is an admitted fact between the parties that complainant had dispatched three parcels of clothes for sending the same to Ghisa Ram Sanjay Kumar at Silliguri from Sirsa through registered post through opposite parties vide three different receipts on payment of postal charges of Rs.393/-, 409/- and Rs.425/- respectively. It is further admitted fact that out of three parcels, one parcel was delivered to the addressee Ghisa Ram Sanjay Kumar at Silliguri and other two parcels allegedly containing clothes of Rs.36382.50 and Rs.37065/- have not been delivered to the addressee till date. As per contention of the complainant, ops have not delivered the parcels though they have charged for the same and there is deficiency of service, gross negligence and willful default on the part of officials of the ops and they are liable to compensate the loss of the complainant. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and has also produced copies of postal receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, copies of cash/ credit memos Ex.C4 to Ex.C8, copies of status report Ex.C9, Ex.C10, copy of grievance status Ex.C11, copy of current status report Ex.C12. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Virendra Singh, Superintendent as Ex.RW1/A.
9. During the course of arguments, Sh. Naveen Kumar, Public Relation Inspector (Postal) has relied upon provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which is reproduced as under:-
6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage:- The (Government) shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damageunless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
Further, the provisions of Rule 84 of Post Office Guide Par-1 relied upon by representative of ops are as under:-
84. Legal Responsibility of the Post Office.- The Indian Post Offic is exempted by law from all responsibility in the case of (1) loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post and (2) wrong payment of delay in payment by Foreign Postal Administration of money orders issued in India. In the case of money orders paid in India and of insured letters and parcels, the extent of the liability of the Indian Post Office will be found in the rules regarding these classes of business.
The representative of the ops has also relied upon the provisions of Section 81 of the P&T Vol VIII which are reproduced as under:-
81. Compensation for loss of, or damage to inland uninsured registered articles.- (1) The Head of a Circle may sanction compensation up to a limit of Rs.25 in respect of the loss of any inland uninsured registered letter, packet, or parcel, or its contents, or of any damage caused to it in the course of transmission through the post, subject to the conditions laid down in the Post Office Guide. Claims for compensation for the loss of an article, or of any of its contents, should be decided by the Head of the Circle of the circle in which the office of posting is situated, while those in respect of damage to an article by the Head of the Circle of the circle in which the office of delivery is situated.
10. No doubt, the complainant at the time of dispatch of parcels did not furnish any declaration qua the containing of the articles in the parcels and its value but however, during the course of arguments, the representative of the ops has conceded that there is no provision or declaration form which was to be filled by the complainant at the time of dispatch of the parcels. So, this contention of ops appears to be devoid of any merit.
11. The second contention of ops is qua the insurance of the parcels. No doubt, the complainant did not get the parcels insured from the insurance company but in the present case it is not case of the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of insurance company rather it is case of willful default, gross negligence of the officials of the ops. It is apparently clear from the facts and evidence of the parties that complainant got dispatched three parcels, out of which one parcel has been delivered to the address and other two parcels which were also to be delivered to the same address have not been delivered till date. It is further proved from the evidence of complainant that remaining two parcels were traced up to Faridabad and thereafter same were not traceable.
12. No doubt, above said Section 6 provides for exemption from liability for loss or damage of the articles to the ops but this section clearly lays down that no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Since it is proved on record that in this case there is some willful act or default and gross negligence on the part of officials of the ops, as such ops cannot take benefit of provision of Section 6 of the Post Office Act. Similarly, the ops cannot take benefit of provisions of Section 84 of the Act. The ops cannot be absolved from their liability to pay compensation to the complainant. This willful act and default and gross negligence on the part of officials of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops and ops are liable to compensate the complainant.
13. In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to trace and deliver remaining two parcels dispatched vide receipts No.CH032894129IN containing clothes of Rs.36382.50 and No.CH032894132IN containing clothes of Rs.37065/- to the complainant or in the alternate to pay total costs of the both the parcels i.e. amount of Rs.73,447.50 (Rs.73,447/-) to the complainant which is evident from copies of bills Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.73,447/- from the date of order till actual payment. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:06.08.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
