PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of December 2011
Filed on :14/08/2009
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.447/2009
Between
M/s. Trade Links Ventures (P) Ltd : Complainant
40/7191, First Floor, (By Adv. Anil D Nair
Tradelinks Building, M/s. Menon & Pai, I.S.
Padma Junction, M.G. Road, Press road, Ernakulam,
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 035, Kochi-682 018)
rep. by its Managing Director,
Mr. Srikantan Suryanarayan.
And
1. Manager, : Opposite parties
Speed Post, Ernakulam, (By Authorised representative)
Kochi-682 035.
2. Manager,
Speed Post Centre,
Mumbai-400 099.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a private limited company. In June 2008 two customers of the complainant entrusted two cameras for its service. The cameras were sent to M/s. Nikon India Service centre Mumbai through the first opposite party on 13-06-2008. The parcel did not reach the destination. The complainant was informed that the parcel has reached Mumbai and from there it is missing and so the same has not been delivered to the addressee. On 14-06-2008 the complainant received a memo from the Superintendent of Railway service informing that sanction is accorded for the payment of Rs. 114/- being refund of double the speed post charges. Complainant was constrained to replace the cameras to their customers by spending Rs. 21,150/-. The complainant sustained loss of reputation and had to incur expenses of making enquires and legal expenses. Altogether the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the opposite parties with interest and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. Version of the opposite parties.
On 13-06-2008 the complainant booked a speed post article with the 1st opposite party, the same was destinated to Mumbai. On 15-07-2008, the complainant lodged a complaint alleging non-receipt of the article. In spite of repeated efforts the article could not be traced out at Mumbai, the same was treated as lost. The amount of Rs. 140/- was paid as compensation to the complainant as per norms. The contents of the speed post articles have neither been declared nor have the articles been parceled at the counter of the booking office. The opposite parties were not aware of the value of the contents of the speed post article sent by the complainant. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A15 were marked on their side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the authorized representative of the opposite party.
4. The following points arose for consideration
i. Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Forum?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 30,000/- from the opposite parties?
iii. Costs of the proceedings
5. Point No. i. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that since the opposite parties failed to deliver the parcel to the addressee they are liable to indemnify the loss sustained by the complainant. On the contrary the authorized representative of the opposite parties maintain that the liability of the opposite party is limited under the Indian Post Office Act. Further he contented that as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act the Government is not liable to incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay, or damage to any parcel articles in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government.
6. Admittedly the complainant has not disclosed the price of the articles or the contents of the parcel at the time of entrustment with the opposite party for reasons of his own for which in law he alone is answerable. Moreover the complainant has no specific allegation against any officer of the postal department that the loss or damage caused is due to fraudulent or willful act or default of anybody. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Union of India and others vs. ML Bora II (2011) CPJ 9 (NC) held that
“Section 6 grants complete immunity to the Government for the loss misdelivery or damage to postal articles. In the present case neither any allegation has been made against any officer of the Postal Department that the loss or damage was caused due to fraudulent or willful act or default of such an officer, nor any of the employees of the Department has been impleaded as a party-respondent making allegations as stated above. In the absence of same no relief can be granted against any of the officers of the department”
7. Upholding the above authority we are not to hold otherwise. The complaint is dismissed hence. So the claim for compensation and costs are dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of December 2011
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
