Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/64

Parmjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Parmvir Singh

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

Paramjit Singh Vs. Sr.Supdt. of Post Office          CC/15/64

 

7.4.2015:Present: Sh.Paramvir Singh, counsel for the complainant.

 

ORDER

                   It is alleged by the complainant that he had dispatched three parcels vide postal receipts No.CP102590454, CP102590456 and CP102590458 dated 29.5.2014, weighing 14830, 14940 and 10810 gms respectively from Patiala to Bangalore  to his son-in-law. The parcels were received by the consignee Sh.Deepinder Singh Madaan on 4.6.2014 from Bangalore city RMS. The weight of parcels No.1,2&3 was found at the time of the delivery as 12300, 14940 and 7350 gms. respectively. Thus the weight of parcels no.1 and 3 was found to be less at the time of delivery.

2.       The consignee i.e. son-in-law of the complainant lodged the complaint with the Post Master HSR layout Bangalore regarding the missing and broken articles in all the three parcels. The inventory of all the three parcels was prepared in the presence of the officers of the post office department which was duly signed by the officers as also Deepinder Singh. The detail of the missing articles as also of the broken articles was submitted to the Post Master HSR Layout Bangalore on 7.6.2014 by Sh.Deepinder Singh, which was received by Supdt., Bangalore. A complaint was also made to Sr.Supdt. of Post Offices, Patiala Division, Patiala as also to Sr.Supdt of Post Offices Bangalore but no action was taken. An enquiry was conducted by Sr.Supdt of Post Offices, Bangalore and it was revealed vide letter dated 20.10.2014 that the alleged tampering was not established at the delivery point and therefore, Sr.Supdt. Post Offices,Patiala was requested to arrange to pay the compensation to the consignor.

3.       The complainant received letter dated 19.1.2015 from Sr.Post Master Head Post Office, Patiala alongwith a cheque of Rs.300/- in respect of the loss and broken articles. The value of the loss and broken articles was Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the complainant suffered the loss as also the mental agony. Accordingly, the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to pay him Rs.22400/- towards the missing/broken items and further to award a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant.

4.       As a matter of fact, the complaint against the Ops is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,1898. It is provided under Section 6 of the said Act, “ The Govt. shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis delivery or delay of, 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 Govt. as here-in-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 his willful act or default”.

5.       In the revision petition No.175 and 245 of 1992 titled as The Presidency Post Master and another Vs.Dr.U.Shanker Rao, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi observed, “ Under the scheme of the Act the claim for compensation will lie at the instance of the Consumer only if there is deficiency in service. According to the Revision Petitioner the statutory protection to the Central Government which is in absolute terms stands as an exception to the general law relating to the commercial carriers. Post Office is a branch of public service functioning under a statue and the liability for misdelivery or  late delivery of an article can be fastened on the Postal department or its officers only on the basis of express provisions of the Post Office Act. The services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. Establishing the Post Offices and running the postal service the Central Government performs government function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for the article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges posed by the State for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier.

12.     We are of the opinion that both the claim petitions referred to above are not maintainable in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. As noticed earlier there is no allegation that the loss, misdelivery or delay occurred on account of fraudulent or willful act of any particular Postal employee”.

6.       In our case also the complainant has not made any allegation in the complaint that the misdelivery(short delivery) had occurred on account of any fraudulent or willful act on the part of a  particular postal employee. Even the complainant has not made any allegation in the complaint that any undertaking was given by the booking office at Patiala that on account of any loss of the consignment or misdelivery, they shall be liable to compensate the complainant. That being so , the complaint is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act,1898 and the same is hereby rejected. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost.

          File be consigned to the record room.

 

                             Member                Member                President