BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 03^rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund him Rs.47/- towards R.P charges, compensation of Rs.45,000/- together with litigation cost.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant had sent one registered parcel through Indian Postal Services on 02.09.2014 at 9.11 A.M from Chandra Layout, Bangalore to Saharsa in state of Bihar.  The said parcel was containing two units of Travatan eye medicine and medicine tablets and one SBI ATM card.  The said parcel was not delivered to the addressee nor was returned to the complainant till today.  The complainant requested the OPs many times and even personally visited them and asked about the status of the parcel.  However, he was not given any satisfactory reply.  Even the complainant sent the e-mail requesting for the return of the parcel.  However, the same was not complied with.  The total value of the articles in the said parcel is Rs.3,000/-.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for an order directing the OP to refund him the R.P charges of Rs.47/-, Rs.45,000/- as compensation towards deficiency in service and litigation cost of Rs.7,500/-.

3. The OP in response to the notice issued appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

On 02.09.2014 at 9.11 A.M a registered ‘letter’ weighing 105 grams was sent from Chandra Layout Post Office, Bangalore to Saharsa by the complainant.  However, it is false to claim that it was a registered ‘parcel’.  On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the OP made all efforts to trace the disposal of the said article and it was found that the said article was refused by the addressee and the same has been returned to the sender on 09.09.2014 itself.  Since the article was received back for delivery without the address of the sender/complainant, it was sent to the “Returned Letter Office” (RLO) as per rules and the same has been updated in reply to the web complaint on 14.10.2014.  As per the request of the complainant the article was retrieved from RLO but the complainant who has personally approached the OP orally refused to obtain the delivery of the article as only SBI ATM card was available and the medicine and tablets alleged to be the part of the content of the article were missing.  The said article has been damaged during the transit due to poor quality of wrapper of the article.  For the said reasons sanction was issued as per rules for refund of postage to the complainant and return of the article retrieved from RLO and was sent through procover on 22.06.2015 to the address of complainant.  However, the same has been received back at the OP office with remarks “Insufficient Address” on 02.07.2015.  All other allegations made against the OP in the complaint are all false and baseless.  That as per sec.6 of Post Office Act, 1898 the OP or its official are not liable to pay any damages/compensation etc., to the complainant as claimed in the complaint.

For the aforesaid reasons, the OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint with costs.  

4. On the rival contention of both the parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of oral evidence and placed reliance on certain documents and copies of communications made between himself and the OPs.  The OPs in support of the averments made in the version have filed affidavit evidence of one Sri.T.S Aswathanarayana, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bangalore West Division and produced documents with list.  Both the parties have submitted their written arguments.

6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, the averments made in the version, the sworn testimony of both the parties, various documents relied upon by both the sides, written submissions and the authorities relied upon by the OP.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8. The complainant alleges that on 02.09.2014 at about 9.11 AM he sent a registered parcel weighing 105 gms from Chandra Layout Post Office to Sahasara in state of Bihar and the said parcel neither was delivered to the addressee nor returned to him.  According to the complainant, the said parcel contained two units of Travatan eye medicine and AF 400 mg medicine tablet and SBI ATM card in all worth Rs.3,000/-.  As could be seen from the averments made in the complaint, various communications between the complainant and OP and the wrapper used by the complainant to send the said article, the subject article was sent through registered ‘letter’ and not through registered ‘parcel’ as claimed by the complainant.

9. The OP contends that upon receiving a complaint from the complainant regarding non delivery of the registered letter, necessary efforts were made to trace the article and it was learnt that the registered letter was refused by the addressee at Sahasara, therefore the same was returned to the sender on 09.09.2014 itself.  It is evident from the material placed on record and also the damaged wrapper produced by the OP that the registered letter was not sent in a good/proper wrapper as a result the wrapper has been damaged and it appears because of the same some of the contents have been lost.  The complainant did not explain the reason as to why the addressee refused to receive the said letter when the same was tendered to him.  Because of the damage caused to the wrapper the said article could not be delivered to the complainant as his address was not found on the damaged wrapper and hence the same was sent to RLO.  After receipt of the complaint, the said article has been retrieved from RLO and the complainant was secured the office of OP and was informed about the damaged post and was asked to receive the ATM card which was available in the wrapper.  However the registered post so sent as returned with an endorsement as ‘Insufficient Address’.

10. Admittedly, the complainant has not declared the contents of the registered letter while booking the said registered letter at Chandra Layout Post Office on 02.09.2014.  The various communications between the complainant and the OP and the communications between the OP and other post office discloses that the OP has made every effort to deliver the letter to the addressee and when the same has been refused by the addressee the same has been returned to the Post Office from where it was posted.  The loss of certain articles said to be containing in the registered letter was because of the poor quality of the wrapper.  The OP cannot be held responsible for loss of the alleged articles.  We also cannot believe that the damage to the wrapper or alleged loss of contents of the registered post was because of the negligence on the part of official of OP.

11. The learned advocate for the OP referring to the provisions contained in Section.6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and judgment rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 02^nd December 1999 in Revision Petition No.986 of 1996, argued that the OP cannot be held responsible for any loss of articles during transit.  Section.6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 reads as under:

6.     Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage – The (Government) shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay, 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 as hereinafter 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.

12. As could be seen from the provisions contained in Section.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the OP shall not incur any liability for any loss, misdelivery, delay 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.  Further it provides that 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.  In the instant case on hand there is no material to believe that the loss of certain articles in the said registered post have been caused by any officials of the OP either with any fraudulent intention or deliberately or by default.  Furthermore, there is no material on record to believe that the complainant had purchased any such tablets or medicine for being sent to the addressee.  The complainant has also not disclosed the contents of the registered letter at the time of booking the same.  In view of the provisions contained in Section.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the OP cannot be held responsible for the alleged loss of medicine/tablets contained in the said registered letter.  The Hon’ble Apex Consumer Court in the judgment referred supra while dealing with similar case has opined that the OP cannot be held responsible and cannot be directed to pay the cost of the article or compensation/damages for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of postal article in the course of transmission in view of the provisions contained in Section.6 of the Indian Post Office Act.  In view of the principles laid down in the above referred judgment, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant cannot maintain the present complaint against the OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 03^rd day of February 2016)

MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 01.10.2015.

1. Sri.Santosh Kumar Singh

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 01.10.2015.

1. Sri.T.S Aswathanarayana     

Document produced by the Opposite party:

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*