Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/94/2019

N R Narasimhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master, Ashok Nagar Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 22.03.2019

                                                     Date of Reservation      : 21.07.2022

                                                     Date of Order               : 03.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:  TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                         : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,        :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 94/2019

WEDNESDAY, THE 3^rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022

N.R. Narasimhan,

16, K K Ponnurangam Salai,

OM Sakthi Nagar,

Valasaravakkam,

Chennai – 600 087.                                                     ... Complainant   

 

..Vs..

1.Post Master,

   Ashok Nagar Post Office,

   Chennai – 600 083.

 

2.Director of Foreign Post,

   Department of Post,

   Chennai – 600 001.                                             ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : Party in person

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. S. Chandrasekaran

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A.,B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to Refund Rs.915/- being the excess postage without deducting GST and to refund Rs.1250/- towards the cost of milk sweets that got spoiled due to delayed delivery and to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, stress and strain  the Complainant is a senior citizen had to go through and to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost and other incidental and transportation charges.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Complainant booked a Speed Post parcel containing Deepavali sweets and gifts to his son at United States of America on 23.10.2018 (ET1804931231IN). on the assurance from the Ashok Nagar Post Office that the parcel will be delivered within 4 to 7 working days from the date of booking and paid postage of Rs.5605/-. The parcel was delivered only on 03.11.2018 on 12^th day of booking. Since the parcel was not delivered in time, as assured, the Complainant took up the matter with Post Master General claiming vide his letter dated 05.11.2018, to treat the parcel as though booked under ordinary registered post and refund excess collected and to refund Rs 1250/- towards the cost of milk sweets that got spoiled due to delayed delivery. The opposite party admitted the delay vide their letter dated 16.11.2018 without any regret and confirmed that the complainant is eligible for refund of Speed post charges less ordinary post. Charges which workout to Rs.915/-as detailed below 5605, Speed Post charges at Rs.5605, Ordinary Registered Post charges 4690, difference being Rs.915. The complainant would have paid postage of Rs.4690/- had he booked the parcel under ordinary Regd. post which confirmed by the opposite party vide their letter dated 18.12.2018. But the opposite party vide their letter dated 18.12.2018 informed that complainant is eligible for refund of Rs.60/-after deducting GST of Rs.815 and further refused to refund Rs.1250/- claimed by the complainant towards the milk sweets that got spoiled. He booked the parcel on 23.10.2018 would have paid only Rs.4605 and not Rs.4605+815-5420. The opposite party is not in order in deducting GST from the refund payable to complainant as it does not involve any service rendered. Despite repeated letters opposite party is not offering any satisfactory explanation as to why GST is deducted from refund payable though the refund is not service rendered. Hence the complaint.

3.  Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Opposite parties submitted that the Complainant had booked a speed post article No. ET180493123IN on 23.10.2018 at Ashok Nagar S.O weighing 6690 gms and a postage of Rs.5,605/- was paid including GST of Rs.855/-. The article was sent to his son living in United States of America containing milk sweets and other homemade sweets. As per sanction issued by Director Foreign Post, dated 16.11.2018 it is informed that the speed post article was despatched from Chennai EMS through Despacth No.EM 257 bag 4 on 24.10.2018 and was connected to flight AI 0093. The bag reached USA on 30.10.2018. As per online tracking SPA ET180493123IN was received at USA, Office of exchange on 30.10.2018. The article was retained at Customs at USA from 30.10.2018 to 01.11.2018 (3 days). The article was despatched from the office of exchange on 02.11.2018 and received at delivery location on 03.11.2018 and delivered on the same day. The complainant has also accepted that the article was delivered on 03.11.2018 to the addressee. He has however stated that as per delivery norms the article should have been delivered within 4-7 days. As per online tracking the article was delivered at USA on the 12th day of booking. The complainant however does not deny the delivery of the article. In this connection, the sender was granted the eligible refund of Rs. 60/- for the delay in delivery of the speed post item being the difference between the Postage charges paid and the registered airmail charges for the weight of the article + GST. (Refund of postage along with GST is eligible only in the case of non-delivery/loss of article). The refund amount of Rs.60/- (5605-4690+855) was communicated to the complainant, by the Director Foreign Post vide letter no. FP/EMSOTW/2296/18 dated 16.11.2018 and sanction memo was Issued vide memo No CPTI/Compensation/digs/12/17-18 dated 22.11.2018 of SSPOS, Chennai City South Division for payment of refund amount of Rs.60/- to the sender. The same has been refused by the sender and he has approached the DCDRF. As per delivery norms specified in the Citizen Charter delivery of International EMS articles destined to USA to be delivered within 4 -7 working days. However, all International mails are subject to customs examination. Period for customs examination/detention is not included in the service standards as per Citizen's Charter prescribed by the Department of Posts. As per online tracking the article was received at USA on the 6th working day. The standard norms for delivery of foreign speed article is 4-7 days which is subject to customs examination. Period of customs examination/detention is not included in the service standards. The said speed post article was delivered at USA on the 12th day of booking, for which the sender was granted the eligible amount for delay in delivery. The booking of perishable items like milk sweets are to be made at the risk of the customers only. Hence the claim of Rs.1,250/- paid towards milk sweets could not be paid by Department of Posts. The sender was granted the eligible refund of Rs. 60/- for the delay in delivery of the speed post item being the difference between the Postage charges paid and the registered airmail charges for the weight of the article + GST. This case not comes under the above said category since the article was delivered to the addressee on the charges worked out by the complainant could not be effected. As per UPU convention the speed post article ET180493123IN was correctly delivered to the addressee. The same has been accepted by the complainant. It is also submitted that booking of perishable items like milk sweets are to be made at the risk of the customers only. Hence the claim of Rs.1250/- paid towards milk sweets could not be paid by Department of Posts. The complainant has stated that GST amount not to be deducted since the service is not rendered. But the article was delivered to the addressee and the same was also accepted by the complainant. Hence the service rendered by the Postal Department is proved and the complainant is eligible only for refund of Rs.60/-. It is intimated that postage including GST will be refunded only in the case of non-delivery of articles. It is submitted that the Booking of perishable items like milk sweets are to be made at the risk of the customers only. Hence the claim of Rs.1250/- paid towards milk sweets could not be paid by Department of Posts. There is no case of mental agony as specified by the complainant since the speed post article ET180493123IN was delivered to the addressee. According to Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the government, shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damaged 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 herein after provided and 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. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed. 4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3  were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties, no documents were marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled for?

 

Point No.1:-

It is not in dispute that the Complainant had booked a parcel of Milk Sweets by Speed Post to be delivered at United States of America on 23.10.2018 (ET1804931231IN) on the assurance that the parcel will be delivered within 4 to 7 working days from the date of booking and paid postage of Rs.5605/-.

The disputed fact is that the parcel was delivered only on 03.11.2018 on 12^th day of booking, which is more than the assured date of delivery. As delivery was not made by the Opposite Parties in time, the Complainant had claimed for refund of excess collected amounting to Rs.915/-and to refund Rs 1250/- towards the cost of milk sweets that got spoiled due to delayed delivery.

The Contention of the Complainant is that though the opposite party admitted the delay vide their letter dated 16.11.2018, though he is eligible for refund of difference amount of Rs.915/- being Speed post charges of Rs.5,605/- less ordinary post Charges of Rs.4,690/-, as the Ordinary Post charges been confirmed by the opposite party vide their letter dated 18.12.2018, but the opposite party vide their letter dated 18.12.2018 had informed that complainant is eligible for refund of Rs.60/- only after deducting GST of Rs.815 and further refused to refund Rs.1250/- claimed by the complainant towards the milk sweets that got spoiled. Further contended that if he had booked the parcel under ordinary post would have paid only Rs.4690/- and not Rs.4690 plus Rs.855 amounting to Rs.5545 and the opposite party is not correct in deducting GST from the refund payable to complainant as it does not involve any service rendered. Despite repeated letters the opposite party had not offered any satisfactory explanation as to the deduction of GST from refund payable though the refund is not for service rendered.

The Contention of the Opposite Party is that they admit the fact of payment of Rs.5,605/- which includes GST of Rs.855/-. As per sanction issued by Director Foreign Post dated 16.11.2018 it was informed that the speed post article was despatched from Chennai EMS through Despatch No.EM 257 bag 4 on 24.10.2018 and was connected to flight AI 0093. The bag reached USA on 30.10.2018. As per online tracking SPA ET180493123IN was received at USA, Office of exchange on 30.10.2018. The article was retained at Customs at USA from 30.10.2018 to 01.11.2018 (3 days). The article was despatched from the office of exchange on 02.11.2018 and received at delivery location on 03.11.2018 and delivered on the same day, ie., on 03.11.2018. The complainant has also accepted that the article was delivered on 03.11.2018 to the addressee. He has however stated that as per delivery norms the article should have been delivered within 4-7 days. As per online tracking the article was delivered at USA on the 12th day of booking. The complainant however does not deny the delivery of the article. The Complainant was granted the eligible refund of Rs. 60/- for the delay in delivery of the speed post item being the difference between the Postage charges paid and the registered airmail charges for the weight of the article + GST. (Refund of postage along with GST is eligible only in the case of non-delivery/loss of article). The refund amount of Rs.60/- (5605-4690+855) was communicated to the complainant, by the Director Foreign Post vide letter no. FP/EMSOTW/2296/18 dated 16.11.2018 and sanction memo was Issued vide memo No CPTI/Compensation/digs/12/17-18 dated 22.11.2018 of SSPOS, Chennai City South Division for payment of refund amount of Rs.60/- to the sender. Since the said refund was refused by the Complainant and he has approached this Commission. Though the complainant had averred that as per delivery norms specified in the Citizen Charter delivery of International EMS articles destined to USA to be delivered within 4 -7 working days, however, all International mails are subject to customs examination. Period for customs examination/detention is not included in the service standards as per Citizen's Charter prescribed by the Department of Posts. Further contended that as per online tracking the article was received at USA on the 6th working day and the booking of perishable items like milk sweets are to be made at the risk of the customers only. Hence the claim of Rs.1,250/- paid towards milk sweets could not be paid by Department of Posts. The Complainant was granted the eligible refund of Rs. 60/- for the delay in delivery of the speed post item being the difference between the Postage charges paid and the registered airmail charges for the weight of the article + GST. Since the article was delivered to the addressee, the charges worked out by the complainant could not be effected. As per UPU convention the speed post article ET180493123IN was correctly delivered to the addressee, as admitted by the complainant. Further contended that the complainant has stated that GST amount not to be deducted since the service is not rendered, but the article was delivered to the addressee and the same was also accepted. Hence the service rendered by the Postal Department is proved and the complainant is eligible only for refund of Rs.60/-. Hence there is no case of mental agony as specified by the complainant since the speed post article ET180493123IN was delivered to the addressee.

It is also contended highlighting Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the government, shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damaged 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 herein after provided and 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.  The Indian Post Office Act was passed in 1898; it has outlived its utility, has become archaic and can be disregarded. Hence the arguments of the Complainant has to be rejected straightaway. Further contended that the Laws of the land so long as they are in force have to be respected and followed and Article 372 of the Constitution specifically lays downs that all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force until altered or repeated or amended by a competent Legislature.

The Opposite Parties had relied upon the Orders passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 13.01.2010 in Union of India & 4 others Vs- M.L.Bora, Registrar & Constitutional Attorney of Century, Enka Ltd as well as relied on order dated 09.10.2017 passed in Post Master & 2 others Vs- Sarbeswar Sahoo, wherein in the said orders, it was held that “The Government gives much more in service than it get in revenue. That is the reason for enacting Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act which gives absolute protection to the Government against any claim of damages on account of loss of postal article except in cases and to the extent to which it has been specifically provided in the act itself.” Further observed that “ As Supreme Court has pointed out the Post office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of the sender for sending of the postal articles to the addressee. It is really a branch of the public service subject to the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act and the rules made thereunder.”

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Opposite Parties had rightly refunded the difference amount of Rs.60/- being the difference amount of Speed Post Charges of Rs.5,605/- less Ordinary Postal Charges of Rs.4,690 plus Rs.855/-(GST Charges), as found in the Order dated 18.12.2018, marked as Ex.A-3, the Complainant cannot claim for refund of deduction of GST Charges as the Parcel was delivered as admitted by the Complainant, though there was delay in delivering the parcel of the Complainant by the Opposite Parties and the reasons elicited by the Opposite Party would be legally sustainable. Further the Complainant cannot attribute any deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties as Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act clearly exempts the Government from incurring any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery, 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. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties had not committed any deficiency of service and the refund of Rs.60/- ordered under Ex.A-3 by the Opposite Parties is legally acceptable. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.  

Point No.2 and 3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and is also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 3^rd of August 2022. 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                             T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                             MEMBER I                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	05.11.2018	Complainant letter to speed post master general
Ex.A2	16.11.2018	Opposite Party reply to Complainant
Ex.A3	18.12.2018	Opposite Party letter to Complainant

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                       T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                    MEMBER I                                                                          PRESIDENT