PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties as they did not deliver the parcel to its destination though it was sent by a Speed Post by paying required charges.
2) The facts of the complaint as stated by the Complainant are that he is the Partner of Uday Trading Corporation. On 05/11/07, the Complainant had sent a parcel by Speed Post to the consignee MRF Ltd. containing H.S.S. Drill bits through Opposite Party No.1 by paying P & F. Postage charge of Rs.113/- to Opposite Party No.1 vide receipt No.EM002475579 from Mumbai to Kottayam (Annexure–C1 Tax Invoice of consignment sent through Opposite Party No.1 to consignee). As per practice, the Complainant showed the contents of parcel to Opposite Party No.1. After proper verification the Complainant sealed the parcel. Then it was weighed by Opposite Party No.1. It was of 1 Kg. It was then given to Opposite Party No.1 to send it to the consignee.
3) As per Speed Post, the parcel should have reached to the consignee within 72 hours from 05/11/07. However, the consignee informed the Complainant that the parcel did not reach on 08/11/07. In Speed Post matter, time is an essence. It is the obligation of the post to deliver the parcel within the stipulated time limit.
4) It is further alleged that the Complainant wrote a complaint dtd.29/12/07 and requested the Opposite Party No.1 to look into the matter and send the parcel to its destination at earliest. There was no response. Then the Complainant wrote two letters dtd.07/01/08 to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 to enquire about the loss of the parcel. Both parties were not able to trace the said parcel. Even they did not reply to the letters. Again on 22/01/08 the Complainant wrote letter to the Opposite Party No.2 to trace the parcel containing High Speed Steel went drill bits of value Rs.29,700/- and Dadar ASP Dadar P.O. to trace the parcel. The Complainant has constantly reminded the Opposite Parties but in vain. The Opposite Parties have not even bothered to reply to the letters of the Complainant till filing of this complaint.
5) The Complainant has further alleged that the acts and omissions of the Opposite Parties as stated above amounts to deficiency in service. It caused inconvenience mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.
6) The Complainant has therefore, prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to deliver the parcel at its destination alongwith its contents intact or to pay the Complainant Rs.30,704/-, the value of the contents alongwith interest from 05/11/07 till its realization, a compensation of Rs.2 Lacs and cost of Rs.20,000/-.
7) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents in support of his complaint –
a) Receipt of invoice dtd.05/11/2007.
b) Letter dtd.29/12/2007.
c) Letter dtd.07/01/2008.
d) Letter dtd.22/01/2008.
e) Letter dtd.05/03/2008.
8) Complaint was admitted and Opposite Parties were served with the notice of the complaint. The Opposite Parties appeared through their Ld.Advocate and filed their written statement wherein they have denied the allegations of deficiency in service but specifically admitted that the Complainant has sent an envelope through Speed Post vide Receipt No.EM002475579IN, dtd.05/11/07 to M/s. MRF Ltd., Kottayam. On receipt of the Complainant’s letter dtd.29/12/07, the Opposite Parties took up the matter for enquiries. During the enquiries it is revealed that the article was not delivered and necessary action was taken to issue compensation to the sender as per rules of Post. Under Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, & Clause 81 of the Post Office guide, the Postal authority shall not incur any liability by reason of any loss, mis-delivery or delay of or damage to any postal article during the course of transmission by Post.
9) It is further stated by the Opposite Parties that as per Speed Post Service directives issued by General Manager (BD) on 22/01/1999, the sender on loss of Speed Post article is liable for compensation which is double the Speed Post charges or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. As per this provision a sum of Rs.226 was sanctioned vide order EST/Speed/sanction/BPL/SPA/EM002475579IN/8/09,dtd.05/05/08. The Complainant refused to accept the said amount, though the Opposite Parties offered the said amount to him.
10) Finally, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. The Opposite Parties have attached copies of the following documents in support of their written statement -
a) Speed Post Rules.
b) Sanction Letter dtd.05/05/2008.
c) Rule 81 Post Office guide.
d) Rule 6 Indian Post Office Act, 1898.
11) Thereafter, the Complainant filed his affidavit of evidence wherein he reiterated the facts mentioned in his complaint and denied the points raised by the Opposite Parties in their written statement. The Opposite Parties has also filed their affidavit of evidence and written arguments. The Complainant has also filed his written argument.
12) We heard the Ld.Advocates for both the parties and our findings are as follows –
The Complainant is the Partner of Uday Trading Corporation. It is admitted fact that the Complainant has given a parcel to the Opposite Party No.1 to be sent to Kottayam from Mumbai through Speed Post. Thus, the Complainant has availed the services of the Opposite Party No.1 by paying necessary charges for the Speed Post. The Opposite Parties have also admitted that they received the parcel on 05/11/07 but it was not delivered to the consignee meaning the Opposite Parties lost this parcel during transit from Mumbai to Kottayam. It is the obligation of the Opposite Parties to deliver the parcel booked by the customer by Speed Post within a time limit prescribed for Speed Post. At least it should be delivered at earliest to its destination. In the instant case, the Opposite Parties has miserably failed to deliver the parcel to its destination. They have admitted that it was lost during the transit. This is the serious deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
13) Secondly, when the parcel did not reach to its destination, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties vide his letters dtd.29/12/07, 07/01/08, 22/01/08 and 05/03/08, but the Opposite Parties did not move to respond to the Complainant. This shows the sheer apathy, callous, indifferent and negligent attitude of the Opposite Parties. This is certainly a grave deficiency on the part of Opposite Party particularly when the Government Department is supposed to carry on their business or provide services as per the principle of good& efficient governance.
14) It is specifically noted that the Opposite Parties did not respond till receipt of the notice of this complaint from this Forum. The parcel was lost on or about 06/11/07. It was brought to the notice to the Opposite Parties on 29/12/07. Inspite of such complaint and reminders to the Opposite Parties they did not act till 05/05/08. The Opposite Parties have defended themselves that immediately after receipt of the letter of the Complainant dtd.29/12/07, they instituted enquiry and found that the parcel did not reach to its destination. Therefore, they offered the Complainant Rs.226/- as per their rules and regulations. In this respect the Opposite Parties did not produce the enquiry report. They did not enquire about, how the parcel went missing? Why it did not reach to its destination? How for it travelled and at what point it went missing? who were the employees who handled the parcel ? who was responsible for the loss of the parcel ? and if anybody was found guilty, what punishment was given to the errant official employee. Nothing has been done by the Opposite Parties.
15) The Opposite Parties have taken the shelter of Sec.6 of Post Office Act and Clause 81 of Post Office guide. It is stated by the Opposite Parties that under these provision it is mentioned that “The postal authority shall not incur any liability by reason of any loss mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article during the course of transmission by Post.” In this respect the Complainant has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, vide II (2004) CPJ 347, in Post Master Walajapet Post Office & Anr. V/s. N. Duraisamy. It is held “Failure to deliver registered letter, exemption not applicable.” It s further held that it may be that the postal department being part of the net work under the control and Superintendence of Government being a Government Department, is definitely discharging duties which are in a way regulated by the statute such as Indian Posts and Telegraphs Act. But on that account, the Post Office cannot claim any exemption. In the instant case where no delivery has been effected.”
16) We shall go further and say that the Governmental bodies like Post Offices should be more diligent in their duties to be discharged particularly in the matters like Speed Post delivery of the parcel in which they are under obligation to deliver the parcel very very speedily to the destination and as such, in this case also the Opposite Parties can not hide behind the provisions which are made in 19th century in order to protect the interest of the department at the cost of public’s inconvenience.
17) Even in case of Post Master, Patna and Anr. V/s. Anil Kumar Gupta (2007 CTJ 103 (CP) (SCDRC) the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna has held “Sec.6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 could not be allowed as a excuse for the delayed delivery.” In the case in hand it is not a case of delayed delivery of Speed Post Article but if is a non delivery of Speed Post which is more serious deficiency. Therefore, in our candid view, the Opposite Parties in this case cannot escape the liability under the garb of provisions of Post Office Act and their rules as stated above. Therefore, there is a deficiency in service as the Opposite Parties did not deliver the parcel to its destination. Not only that the Opposite Parties did not care to respond to the correspondence made by the Complainant with them.
18) Because of the non delivery of the parcel the Complainant sustained the loss of Rs.30,704/-. In this respect the Complainant has attached the copy of the Tax Invoice at annexure-1 which shows that the Complainant dispatched the 300 H.S.S. Drill Bits to Kottayam and the cost of the parcel was Rs.30,704/- (price of bits Rs.27,700/- + Charges Rs.113 + Rs.891). Thus, the Opposite Parties had lost the parcel of Rs.30,704/- and caused loss to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for this amount alongwith interest. However, it is noted that the material belongs to Uday Trading Corporation, a partnership firm. So the compensation for mental agony etc. cannot be granted. The Complainant is also liable for the cost of this complaint. In view of the above observations we pass the order as follows –
O R D E R
1. Complaint No.66/2008 is partly allowed.
2. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay jointly and/or severally an amount of Rs.30,704/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Four Only) to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 08/11/2005 till its payment.
3. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay jointly and/or severally Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards the cost of this complaint.
4. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the above said order jointly and/or severally within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
5. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
