Haryana

StateCommission

A/228/2017

INDIAN POST - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAVNEET HOODA - Opp.Party(s)

R.P.SINGH

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.228 of 2017

Date of the Institution:03.03.2017

Date of Decision:23.11.2017

 

1.      Indian Post, District Vadodara (Gujrat) through its Senior Post Master.

2.      Indian Post, District Rohtak (Haryana) through its Senior Post Master.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

1.      Navneet Hooda, S/o Sh. Chander Hass Hooda,  R/o House No.776/35, Janta Colony, Rohtak.

2.      Indian Hobby Shop, WTPS, GSECL Colony, Type-2,/16/2, Di-Kheda, Ta-Thasra, District Wanakbori-388239 (Gujrat)

                                                                             .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.R.P.Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr.Chander Hass, Hooda, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Indian Post, Distt. Vadodara (Gujrat) and Anr.–OPs are in appeal against the Order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Rohtak, whereby the complaint of Navneet Hooda has been allowed with the direction to OPs 2 and 3, to pay an amount of Rs.11999/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 29.01.2016 till its realization alongwith an amount of Rs.3500/- as litigation expenses.  

2.      Briefly stated, the complainant purchased Radio Control Products worth Rs.11999/- including Rs.300/- as shipping cost on 14.03.2014 from OP No.1 (Indian Hobby Shop, Gujrat). The item was not received by the complainant for a considerable long period as such he tracked the details provided by the website of OP No.2 and 3, but the status of the items shipped was still not known despite efforts made by the OPs number of times. Aggrieved by this deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, the complainant the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance.  

3.      On notice OP No.1 did not appear and as such was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.03.2016. However, in their reply, OPs 2 and 3 pleaded that the Speed Post Article No.EG540509665IN was booked from Wanakbori TPS SO on 18.03.2014 and was addressed to Naveen Hooda Rohtak. As per tracking, the Speed post article booked on 18.03.2014 and item bagged for Anand ICH on 18.03.2014 Anand ICH bagged for Vodadara SH and Vadodara SH bagged for Rohtak SH on 19.03.2014 and dispatched to W-20 out of onward transmission. But the article has not been received in Rohtak H.O. so far despite efforts made number of times. OPs pleaded as preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 provided that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. As such the department of Posts enjoyed exemption from the liabilities for non- delivery of the item under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act,1898. However, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint by awarding the aforesaid relief to the complainant.

4.      Against the impugned Order dated 31.10.2016, the OPs 2 and 3/appellants have filed appeal before us reiterating the same pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

5.      In fact, the law relating to dispatch of articles through the agency of post offices, their late delivery and loss in transit and compensation payable therefor, is more than 100 years old. The numerous cases have been dealt under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e. during the last 30 years. Consistent view of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission and the State Commissions in the country has been to award only nominal compensation as permissible under the Post Office Act and Rules made there under, and not as claimed by the Consumers in their claim petitions. One such case decided by the Hon’ble National Commission is Union of India and others versus M.L. Bora, 2011 CTJ 27 (CP) (NCDRC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has observed as under:-

“7.     Section 6 is in two parts. The first part deals with the liability of government and the second part deals with the individual liability of the postal employee. The first part of Section 6 absolves the Government of any liability by reason of loss, mis delivery of delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms undertaken by the Central Government as provided by the statute. Second part provides that no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default”.

6.      Since, in the instant case, the complaint has been made against the Postal Authorities in general and there is no allegation of any fraud or willful act or default on the part of any one of the respondents, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

7.      In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble National Commission, the appeal of the Postal Authorities deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is hereby disposed of with a direction to the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.500/- in lumpsum to meet the expense postal charges spent by the complainant and  the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum stands quashed with no order as to costs.     

8.       Statutory amount of Rs.8,243/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

November 23rd, 2017

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.