Date of Filing: 27-02-2015 Date of Final Order: 07-01-2016
The brief facts of the present case, as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Pradip Kr. Sarkar applied for International Passport on 07/02/2014 being file No. CA-2067483167914. After few days, the Complainant get a docket number of speed post i.e. EW-723390317 by searching the said file number as to get his International Passport through internet service. After getting the said docket number, the Complainant went to the Pundibari Post Office and they informed him that the docket had been send to the Chhoto Khoyratibari Post Office i.e. the O.P. No.1. Then the Complainant went to the O.P. No.1 to get his document but the O.P. No.1 informed him that they did not get any document. The O.P. No.1 also advised to the Complainant to file a written complaint to the Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar Division i.e. the O.P. No.2. Accordingly, the Complainant did the same on 12/08/2014 and the O.P. No.2 assured that they would look after the matter but all in vain. In this situation, the Complainant contacted to the O.P. No.1 & 2 and the Passport Office, Kolkata on several occasion but the Complainant did not get his Passport till date.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant suffered from mental pain & agony and unnecessary harassment and for such deficiency in service and negligence adopting by the O.Ps, the complainant suffering from financial loss.
Hence, the complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay (i) Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony, unnecessary harassment and financial loss, (ii) Rs.40,000/- for travelling Expenses to go to Passport Office, Kolkata, (iii) Rs.5,000/- for others expenses and (iv) Rs.15,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. No.1, Post Master, Chhoto Khoyratibari Post Office and the O.P. No.2, Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar Division have contested the case by filing W/V denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.Ps is that the Complainant made a complaint to the D.O. on 12/08/2014 and the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar West Sub-Division was directed to enquire into the matter on 18/08/2014. Accordingly, to his enquiry report, the SPM, Pundibari S.O mentioned in his letter dated 11/10/2014 that the SPA in question has been received by Pundibari S.O on 15/07/2014 and the article was sent to the Chhoto Khoyratibari B.O with entry in the speed post ID list through B.O list dated 15/07/2014. The O.Ps stated that they have no deficiency as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act. As per departmental Rules compensation made for loss of contents/loss of articles/damage double of the speed post charges or INR 1000which ever is less. As per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the Govt. shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except is so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Govt. as herein after provided and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
Ultimately, this answering O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case with compensatory costs.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record. Perused the evidence on affidavit and written Argument of both parties also heard the argument of the Ld. Agent of the Complainant.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant filed decision of Honb’le State Commission, W.B. Perused and considered.
Point No.1.
It appears from the complaint that the Complainant submitted an application on 07.02.2014 to the Passport Office at Kolkata for obtaining an international Passport from the said authority against deposit of certain fees. Thus, clearly the Complainant is the Consumer of the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata. But the Complainant instituted the present case against the Postal Department but no where we find that the Complainant hired or availed of any service from the Opposite Party. Besides, it is under consideration that the Complainant paid some money as requisite fees to the Pass Port Authority for obtaining an international Passport and the Passport Office; Kolkata sent the said article through Postal Department at the own expenses of the Complainant and availed of service to reach the article safely to the sender. Thus, the Complainant is the beneficiary of that service and as per C.P. Act he is a Consumer of the Opposite Parties.
Point No.2.
The Head office and branch office of the O.Ps are situated within this district and the complaint value is far less than the prescribed limit for which this Forum has pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No.3.
Undisputedly, the Complainant preferred an application on 07.02.2014 to the Passport Office at Kolkata for obtaining an international Passport from the said authority. Evidently, the said article/Passport was duly sent by the Passport Office through Speed Post service bearing No. EW 723390317IN dated 10.07.2014.
“Annexure-2” reveals that the said article was booked on 10.07.2014 at Kolkata G.P.O. and delivered to Chhoto Khairatibari B.O. on 15.07.2014.
It is the case of the Complainant that till filing the case he had not receipt with the passport from the end of the opposite party though said article was duly booked/sent by the Passport Office, Kolkata through Speed Post Service of the O.P.
It is the case of the Opposite Party that after receiving the said article by Pundibari S.O. on 15.07.2014 the article was sent to Chhoto khairatibari B.O. with entry in the Speed Post ID list dated 15.07.2014. The Opposite parties have taken plea as to the non- delivery of the article in question is not a willful act of the O.Ps. Moreover, the O.ps took shelter the provision of section 6 of the Post Office Act 1898 wherein it is provided that “no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except is so far as such liability may in express term be undertaken by the Central Govt. as herein after provided and no officer of the post office shall any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act of default, no deficiency in postal service is made”.
In this connection, we must rely on the decision reported in NS & SC on consumer cases (Part III)-4508 NS (Superintendent of Post Office & Others -Vs- Upovokta Surakshya Parisad) as referred to by the Ld. Counsel of the Complainant wherein it has been laid down that section 6 of the Indian Postal Act 1898 is totally antiquated and out of tune with the spirit of Democratic Government in a parliamentary system where all actions of the government functionaries are subject to scrutiny and all such functionaries are accountable for any lapse or misdeed on their part in discharge of their duty. It is time that a comprehensive review of the Postal Act is to be undertaken so as to incorporate suitable amendments and modifications to bring it in tune.
It is pertinently to mention that the O.P. took shelter of Section 6 of the said Act seems that the O.Ps admitted the fact of non-delivery of the article in question. Moreover, the O.Ps did not file any documents to show that the article was duly received by the Complainant though by filing evidence on affidavit the Complainant has clearly claimed that no such article containing Passport has been received by him.
During the course of argument the Ld. Agent of the O.Ps frankly admitted that there is no receipt in the custody of the O.Ps. The Ld. Agent of O.Ps argued that there is no iota of evidence whether the article sent so was the Passport of the Complainant or any other letter for which the loss as stated by the Complainant is not sustainable.
Evidently, the Complainant preferred an application for obtaining Passport to the Passport Office, Kolkata who sent the same through Speed Post Service of the O.Ps. By submitting affidavit the Complainant stated that said Pass Port has sent to him by Pass Port Authority through Speed Post being No. EW 723390317IN on 10.07.2014. Track Report shows that the article was delivered. But there is no such mention that actually it was delivered to whom.
Annexure 3 i.e. complaint dated 12.08.2014 submitted by the Complainant to the Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar also shows that by mentioning said Speed Post number he prayed for delivering of his Pass Port to him.
In this juncture we find nothing to show that beside pass port another letter/document has sent to the Complainant by the Pass Port Office, Kolkata.
Another plea of the O.Ps for non-joinding necessary parties is also not tenable in the eye of law. More so, in view of ruling reported in 2014 (4) CPA 258(SC), claim petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.
Keeping in view of the ratio of the fact as made available before us by the present case and the view as endorsed and echoed in the decision as mentioned above, we are satisfied to hold and conclude that the act and conduct of the O.Ps, particularly of the O.P. No.1 is tantamount to deficiency in service by not delivering the article to the Complainant that was urgent.
Point No.4.
As it is already proved that the OPs have deficiency in service, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for but in part.
In this juncture, it is to be settled that what amount the Complainant is entitled to as Compensation?
From the entire facts of the case we find that the Complainant obtained a Pass Port by spending his hard earned money from the Passport Office, Kolkata but that article not reached to him due to negligence Act of the O.Ps, practically the O.P. No.1. In this premises it be kept in our mind that before issuing Pass Port one have to complete various formalities. The Pass Port Office issued Pass Port in favour of the Complainant after completion of all necessary formalities and the Complainant paid certain amount for that purpose. But, by not getting the Pass Port the Complainant will not be able to go abroad the country also will face various troubles for re-issuing the said Pass Port and that also took unlimited time. The alleged article did not reach to the sender that happens only for the callousness of the Central Govt. employee that is unpardonable.
Considering the over all aspects, in our view Rs. 20,000/- will met the justice to compensate the Complainant.
Accordingly, all points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Thus, the case succeeds.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/-against the O.Ps but in part.
The O.Ps are directed to pay the Complainant Rs.20,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service.
The Ops are hereby also directed to comply with the order jointly and/or severally within 45 days failure of which O.Ps shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
