ORDER                               Dated:  21-09-2016  Mohd. Anwar
Alam, President

1.     Complainant filed this complaint on 03-02-2014 and alleged that
he has dispatched items including one American Digital Weightless
wrist watch and one American Digital Weightles Camera from Karol Bagh
Post Office to Kota City  vide speed post consignment no.
ED131115859IN dated 28.02.2012. The total cost of consignments was Rs.
70,630/- and speed post  charges was Rs.50. complainant further
alleged that for more than 2 months the department of speed post did
not deliver the consignment and despite so many reminders and letters
the OP gave no response hence it is prayed that OP be directed to pay
Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

2.     In reply, OP did not deny the booking of the consignment and
denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint. OP further
stated that at the time of booking complainant did not disclose the
contents of the article and the article was an prohibited item hence
OP is not liable for any loss or theft or compensation to the
complainant and the article was returned to  the sender on 05-03-2012
due to the reason refusal and prayed that the complaint be dismissed
with cost.

3.     The complainant   has filed rejoinder to the reply and
explained that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of
his complaint the complainant filed his own affidavit along with
documents EX. CW-1/A to Ex CW-1/D. In support of reply OP filed
affidavit of Disha Pannu (Sr. Suptd.) along with documents . Both the
parties filed their written arguments

4.     We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by
the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points
to be considered are as under:-

(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

( c) Relief?

5.     As OP has admitted that Speed Post Article No. ED131115859IN
booked at Karol Bagh Post Office dated 28.02.2012 and the Speed Post
Charges was  of Rs.50 was taken hence complainant is a consumer.

6.     Complainant in his affidavit deposed that he waited the post
for deliver  at given address for more than two months but the
department of Speed Post did not delivered that so far but he did not
deny specifically the fact that article was returned to sender on
05.03.2012 in his affidavit. On the other hand affidavit in support of
OP by Smt. Disha Pannu that the article as alleged were returned to
the sender on 05.03.2012. As per the direction of the Postal
Department for Speed Post (Services and Operation) there are
prohibitions / restrictions regarding items cannot be sent which
includes precious or semi-precious items. It is pertinent to mention
herein that under the provision of rule 83A of  Indian Post Office
Rules 1993 when a letter or  parcel contains government currency
notes,  bank notes ,gold coins etc  sender has to mention the value of
the articles at the time of  dispatch. There is nothing on the record
that at the time of booking complainant declared the articles/items
and the value of the articles/items.  There is no where mentioned in
the complaint that the loss caused to the complainant was willful and
fraudulent  act of the officer of the post office.  In these
circumstances , provision of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act
1898  are applicable and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any
liability by the reason of above loss. Therefore, in our considered
opinion there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Post
Office.

7.      In these above aforementioned circumstances and facts we are
of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in of post
office in this complaint and the complaint is not maintainable under
the provision of Consumer Protection Act and dismissed accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.

       Announced on …………