DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC – 31  of   2018

 

 

Sri Suman Bepari,

S/O- Hare Krishna Bepari,

Shibnagar, Sadar,

P.O. Agartala College,

Agartala, West Tripura. …..…..…......Complainant.

 

       

           -VERSUS-

 

 

1. Post Master,

Chandlodia Post Office, 

Ahmedabad, Gujrat- 382481.

 

2. Superintendent,

Agartala Head Post Office,

Agartala, West Tripura. ................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C o u n s e l

 

For the Complainant : In person.

        

For the Opposite Parties : Sri Indrajit  Biswas,

  Standing Govt. Counsel,

  Govt of India.   

 

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:  20.09.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Suman Bepari U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 10.04.18 one parcel was sent by his brother  to  Agartala Post Office from Chandlodia Post Office of Ahmedabad. But the article did not come and was missing. Complaint was lodged to the Indian Post Service. But no action taken. The value of the parcel was Rs.22,300/-. 

2. Written statement filed by the Superintendent, Agartala Post Office, O.P. No.2. It is stated that complainant is not a consumer and the consumer is Saikat Das of Chandlodia. The service are to be provided from Chandlodia Branch of Gujrat. So this court has no jurisdiction. The address of the complainant is in respect of 'delivery services'. The insurance facility was available but the parcel was not insured. Grievance Cell was also available. But the petitioner failed to place his grievance in proper place. So, this claim is liable to be dismissed. 

 

3. O.P. No.1, Post Master, Chandlodia Post Office did not submit any written statement. So on the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the court has jurisdiction and the petition is maintainable?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the lost parcel? 

4. Petitioner side produced the track report, letter issued by Senior Superintendent, Post Office, Gandhinagar Division. Also the petitioner was cross examined.

5. O.P. on the other hand did not give any evidence.

6. So, on the basis of all evidences on record we shall now determine the above points.

Findings and decision:

7. It is admitted fact that Agartala College Post Office was the delivery point and the petitioner was beneficiary of the service to be given by the Post Office. Indian Post Office has its branch at Agartala and postal service is available at Agartala. From Chandlodia, Gujrat the parcel was sent. But it was not delivered. As the O.P. Indian Post providing services at Agartala and other parts of Tripura so this court has jurisdiction to entertain any complaint in respect of deficiency of service by India Post. Petitioner is the beneficiary of the service who is to pay the service and recipient of the parcel. Sender Saikat Das was his brother in law and he paid the amount on behalf of Suman Bepari recipient of the parcel. Parcel also belong to Suman Bepari and parcel charge was also paid on behalf of Suman Bepari. 

 

8. Learned advocate for the O.P. referred the decision of the Hon'ble State Commission of Mizoram. In that case contract was between the sender and the Indian Post. But here the payment was made on behalf of recipient and recipient suffered due to non delivery of the parcel. So, the recipient Suman Bepari is very much consumer in this case and the case is also maintainable. 

9. It is admitted position that the parcel was not delivered. From the track report it is found that on 10.04.18 parcel was dispatched from Ahmedabad. But it was lost between Guwahati Division and SG Division, Siliguri. O.P. Senior Superintendent, Gandhinagar Division by one letter admitted it and requested Saikat Das, sender to fill up attached form for compensation. So O.P. was ready to give compensation. O.P. now did not give any evidence to disprove the allegation that cost of the parcel was Rs.22,300/-. Insurance coverage is not mandatory and the Indian Post accepted the parcel and promised to deliver. It is true that Indian Post has got some exemption facility for the liability for loss and damage as per Section '6' of the Post Office Act. But this plea is not taken. Above all no exemption is available for deficiency of service. Petitioner is the beneficiary and owner of the parcel. O.P. failed to give any evidence to disprove the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to get the value of the parcel was Rs.22,300/- as claimed, Petitioner suffered because of non delivery of the article in time and for his sufferings mental agony he is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- for deficiency of service of the O.P. and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost. Total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.25,000/-. We direct Indian Post Office, Director of Postal Services, Tripura and the Superintendent of Postal Services and also O.P. No.1, Post Master, Chandlodia to pay the amount  Rs.22,300/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs. 47,300/- to the petitioner within 2(two) months. If it is not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.       

 

        Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA