SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite party to pay the value of mobile phone Rs.5,278/- and speed post charge Rs.106 with 12% interest along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
The case of the complainant in brief
On 25/09/2022 the complainant had purchased Real me C30 (lake blue 32 GB) Mobile phone handset 2 in Numbers. Then on 30/12/2022 the complainant had booked a speed post article No. EL291020440 IN on OP No.2’s office weighing 322 grams and paying speed post charge of Rs.106.20/- and he send one of the mobile phone worth Rs.5,728/- to Sohar Ali. S/o Yad Ali, Bijini (PO) Pin 783390. But the speed post articles were not reached to the addressee. Then the complainant approached OP No.2’s office after 7 days of despatch of the article. Then the OPs informed that the speed post article is reached at Mangalore Airport. Then after 14 days the complainant again approached to OP No.2’s office. At that time also the OP2 states that waiting for 30 days also. Then after 30 days complainant again approached to OP No.2 and he filed an online compliant registered in CRM web portal on 02/02/2023. The online complainant system is the updation process of data from the office of booking to office of destination till its delivery. So the article was dispatched to Kannur parcel Hub and subsequent updation was made by Mangaluru the the said article was received at Mangaluru PH on 01/01/2023 and was closed to Guwahati parcel Hub and dispatched to Mangaluru RMS on 02/01/2023. But Assam postal circle updated that the article was not reached at the destination and not traceable. Then the OP No.2 enquired the matter and send an investigation report to complainant and stated that the OPs are ready to compensate the same. Then the complainant approached the OP No.2’s office at Kannur and he stated that the department guideline is that the maximum period after which a speed post article can be treated as ‘lost’ in the absence of final delivery status. The speed post charges paid by the complainant was Rs.106.20/- and thus he is eligible for a compensation of Rs.212.40/- which is the double amount of speed post charges paid by him. But the complainant not accepted the amount and he states that Rs.5728/- was the value of mobile phone. The act of OP’s the complainant caused much mental agony & financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s. Hence the complaint.
After receiving notice both OPs entered the commission and filed their written version. OPs contended that at the time of booking the speed post article or its worth was not declared by the complainant. If it was disclosed by the complainant at the time of booking the facility of insurance would have been suggested. The article was dispatched to Kannur PH (parcel Hub) and subsequent updation was made by the Mangaluru that the said article was received at Mangaluru PH on 01/01/2023 and was closed to Guwahati parcel Hub and dispatched to Mangaluru RMS on 02/01/2023. But Assam postal circle updated that the article was not reached at the destination and not traceable. Then the OPs enquired the matter and send an investigation report to complainant and stated that the OPs are ready to compensate the same. The speed post charges paid by the complainant was Rs.106.20/- and thus he is eligible for a compensation of Rs.212.40/- which is the double amount of speed post charges paid by him as per the rule 66-B of Indian post office Rules 1933. Moreover the complainant had not made any declaration about the contents of the article at the time of booking. The contents were not put inside the envelope in presence of the OPs or the booking official. Hence the contention that the article contained a mobile phone costing Rs.5728/- is only a single line assertion. If the article is insured, insurance covers all risks in course of transmission by post. If the article is insured, the sender shall eligible for compensation not exceeding the amount for which the article has been insured. But in this case the complainant has not availed the facility of insurance. So the OPs have acted timely and properly as per the provision of law, there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complaint may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext. A1 to A5 were marked. On OP’s side Dw1 was examined and Ext. B1 to B3 were marked. Both sides filed argument note also.
Issue No.1
The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as Pw1 by the OPs. The documents Ext.A1 to A5 were marked on his part to substantiate his case.
In Ext.A1 is the speed post postal receipt. Ext.A2 is tax invoice of mobile phone. In Ext.A3 is the reply send by OPs to complainant and Ext.A4 is the investigation report. In Ext.A5 is the application form send by OP to complainant for acceptance of compensation for the lost article as per 66 B of Indian post office rule 1933. In the evidence of Pw1 who categorically stated that “mobile phone വാങ്ങിയ രേഖ ഹാജരാക്കിയതുകൊണ്ട് അയച്ച parcel ൽ Mobile phone ആണെന്ന് പറയാൻ പറ്റുമോ? പറ്റും. weight നോക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. സ്റ്റിക്കർ ഒട്ടിച്ച് പാക്കറ്റ് ഉണ്ട്. More over in the evidence of Dw1 stated that “സാധനം അയച്ചാൽ അയാൾ സ്ഥലത്തില്ലെങ്കിൽ return back office ലേക്കാണ് അയക്കാറ് (Chennai). അവിടെ ഈ സാധനം ഉണ്ടോ എന്ന് അന്വേഷിച്ചോ? ഇല്ല. Parcel സാധനം അയക്കാൻ തന്നാൽ സാധനം സ്ക്കാൻ ചെയ്യാറുണ്ടോ? സ്ക്കാൻ ചെയ്യാറില്ല. നിങ്ങൾക്ക് mobile phone അല്ലെന്ന് എങ്ങനെയാണ് ബോധ്യപ്പെട്ടത്? Parcel എന്താണെന്ന് അറിയില്ല. mobile phone ആണോ Parcel എന്ന് അറിയാൻ പറ്റില്ല.” On OP’s side no documents to prove their defense to discard the evidence of Pw1. OP produced some decisions before the Hon’ble National Commission also. So we hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. So the OPs are jointly and severally liable to compensate the losses sustained to the complainant. Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 & 3
As discussed above the complainant booked a speed post article No. EL 291020440 IN dated 30/12/2022. But the article was not reached at the destination and not traceable. Then the OPs are ready to compensate the same. Moreover, the speed post charges paid by the complainant was Rs.106.20/- and thus he is eligible for a compensation of Rs.212.40/- which is the double amount of speed post charges. But the complainant was not amenable for the above amount. Therefore we hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the value of mobile phone Rs.5728/- to the complainant along with Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost. Thus the Issue No.2 & 3 are also answered accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the value of mobile phone of Rs.5,728/- to the complainant along with Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.5,728/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1 –Speed post- postal receipt
A2-Tax invoice
A3- Letter send by postal department to complainant
A4-Tracking enquiry report
A5-Application form
B1-Reply to complainant dated 17/05/2023
B2-Extract of rule 66-B of Indian post office Rule 1933
B3-Extract of Sec. 6 of the Indian post office Act 1898
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
