Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No. 2726 of  2003

1- Union of india through its Secretary,

    Ministry of Post and Telegraph

    Communication, New Delhi. 

2- Chief Post Master, Post Office,

    Moradabad Division, Moradabad.                 …Appellants.                                                                         

M/s Indian Drugs and Cosmetics, D-30-31,

Industrial Estate, Harthala, Moradabad through

Its Partner, Sri Ajay Mittal s/o Sri K.K. Mittal,

R/o Civil Lines, P.S. Civil Lines, Moradabad..…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Srikrishna Pathak, Advocate for appellants.

Sri Arun Tandan, Advocate for the respondent.

Date  4.4.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 4.9.2003 passed by the District Forum, Moradabad in complaint case no.19 of 2002.

          The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the ld. Forum failed to consider the plea of the appellants that the postal department is granted immunity under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 in the case of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of the post articles during the course of its transmission. The postal authorities are not liable for the loss as alleged by the respondent/complainant for the reason that the parcel was not insured. As far as the question of loss in weight is concerned a thorough enquiry had been done about

(2)

the alleged parcels and the liability of the department to pay compensation of Rs.2,000.00 fixed and it has also been paid to the respondent/complainant .The impugned order of the ld. Forum to pay Rs.33,783.78 is baseless, arbitrary and illegal. The interest @ 12% is also baseless and arbitrary as Rs.2,000.00 has already been awarded to the respondent. So, there need not to pay any more. Hence, it is most humbly prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and order be set aside.

          We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri Srikrishna Pathak and ld. Counsel for the respondent Sri Arun Tandan and perused all the pleadings, evidence and documents present on record. 

          We have seen the judgment of the ld. Forum. The complainant vide bill no.R 1441/4.9.2001 and vide bill no.R 1442/4.9.2001 has booked a consignment of medicines through express parcel no.1806 and 1807 having 206 boxes weighing 9 Kg and 7.700 Kg respectively and its value was Rs.14,800.00 while the express parcel no.1808 and 1809 was having 208 boxes weighing 10 Kg and 9.600 Kg respectively and the cost of each box was Rs.100.00, total Rs.20,800.00. It has been booked from the opposite parties’ office Jail Road, Civil Lines, Moradabad to Mr. Ranjeet Chaudhary, Laxmi Charan Road, Kareemganj, Assam on 4.9.2001 vide 4 receipts.

The consignee of the parcel informed that as the weight of the boxes was not according to receipts, so he did not receive the boxes and also informed that the stamp on the parcel was tampered and it has been stitched again. After this

(3)

all the parcels were opened and articles delivered. It came to the know that all the parcels were having less weight in comparison  to booked parcels. After getting certificate for open delivery the complainant on 19.9.2001 presented its claim of Rs.33,783.78 in the office of the opposite party and also filled the required proforma. The opposite parties informed the complaint that his claim was accepted only for Rs.2,000.00. Hence the complaint case has been filed.

The opposite party claimed that under the Post Office Act, he can not be held guilty and Union of India has not been made a party. It is clearly established that when the parcels were reached the destination point, its weight was found less that the booked parcels therefore, a request has been made for open delivery. On 18.9.2001, open delivery was made and it was found that there was deficit of Rs.33,783.78 regarding the booked consignment which had not been delivered. It has been very well established that there has been tampering with the parcels and some medicines found stolen from the parcels.  The medicines were booked with the opposite parties and hence, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant. In this respect, the ld. District Forum has passed the impugned judgment which is according to law and needs no interference by this Commission except the rate of interest which is reduced from 12% to 10%. The appellant liable to be allowed partially.    

ORDER

The appeal is allowed partially. The judgment and order is amended regarding rate of interest which reduced from 12% to 10%. Rest part of the judgment is confirmed.

(4)

 The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Sushil Kumar)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Sushil Kumar)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 2