Delhi

East Delhi

CC/199/2017

SANGEETA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 199/17

 

Ms. Sangeeta Gupta

R/o B-48, Krishan Kunj

Ext. II, Laxmi Naga

Delhi – 110 092                                                          ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

Post Office

Krishna Nagar

Delhi – 110 032                                                               …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 23.05.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 10.01.2019

Judgement Passed on: 31.01.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Sangeeta Gupta against      Post Office, Krishna Nagar (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant, Ms. Sangeeta Gupta sent a gift by speed post vide speed post no.ED-310122007IN from Delhi to Haryana on 02.05.2017 on the marriage of her relative which was on 07.05.2017.  She was assured by post office that the gift will be delivered within 48 hours.  She was shocked when she checked the status of the item on 11.05.2017 and found the same not delivered.

She contacted the post office and asked them to send the item to her relative whose marriage was on 07.05.2017, but she did not get any satisfactory reply.  When she again checked the status, she was surprised to know that the item has been delivered on 09.05.2017.  Thus, she has stated that there has been deficiency in service on the part of post office due to which she has suffered mental agony.  She has claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, pain and suffering and further   Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation. 

3. ED-310122007IN on 02.05.2017 from Krishna Nagar Head Office.  The article was shown as “Item received on 09.05.2017” as per tracking report dated 10.05.2017.  It was actually delivered on 09.05.2017 by Banswa Branch office under Hassanpur Sub Office. 

They have stated that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, they were exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damages.They have also made reference to Gazette of India No. 26 Extra-ordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (I), GSR 40(E) published on 21.01.1999 where it has been stated that:-

            “In case of delay in delivery of domestic speed post article beyond the normal determined by the Department of Posts from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charges and in the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs. 1000/- (One thousand only) whichever is less.”

Thus, they have stated that they cannot go beyond the statutory provisions provided under Gazette Notification.They have denied that any assurance was given to the complainant for delivery of article within 48 hours.They have denied that report of dated 11.05.2017 was showing as ‘Article Not Delivered’.Status report was clearly showing as ‘Item received on 09.05.2017 at 09:25 hours at Hassanpur SO’ as updated on 10.05.2017.The status report last updated on 15.05.2017 showing as ‘Item delivered on 09.05.2017 at 16:46 hours by Banswa B.O.’.They have also stated that in the first report of dated 10.05.2017, the delivery status was not being shown and in the later report dated 15.05.2017, the delivery status was updated.They have denied other facts also.

4.  
5. n support of its case, the complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  

            In defence, Post Office (OP) have examined Shri Mohan Singh Meena, Senior Post Master, who has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. He has got exhibited authorization letter dated 26.04.2018 (Ex.RW/1), copy of track consignment/status report dated 15.05.2017 (Ex.RW/2), extract of Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act 1898 (Ex.RW/3) and copy of Gazette of India No. 26 Extra-ordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (I), GSR 40(E) published on 21.01.1999 (Ex.RW/4).

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of Post Office Krishna Nagar (OP) that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, they were exempted from any liability for delay.  He has further argued that under the extra ordinary Gazette Notification, the liability, if any, has to be as under the said gazette Notification.

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that since there was delay on the part of post office, their liability was made out. 

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.  The same is extracted hereunder:-

“Section 6 – Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay

or damage:

            The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery of, 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 Government as hereinafter provided, and no office 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”.

            Further, reference to notification dated 18.11.2013 of GSR-738E, which amended the Indian Post Office Rules 1933 show that in case of delay in delivery of inland speed post article, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the speed post charges paid.  The relevant portion of amended notification of dated 18.11.2013 is extracted hereunder:-

            (b) all inland Speed Post articles shall be booked, transmitted and delivered in accordance with the norms determined by the Department in this behalf and in case of delay in delivery of inland Speed Post articles beyond the said norms, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the Speed Post charges paid.

            Thus, from a bare reading of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, it comes out that government has been exempted from any liability in case of any loss, delay or damage to any postal article except of the liability undertaken by the Central Government in express terms and no office of post office shall incur liability unless any loss was caused fraudulently and by his willful act or default.  Further, the liability in case of delay as per gazette notification has been in case of delay, equal to the speed post charges paid.

            To ascertain whether there was any delay on the part of post office, which was caused fraudulently or by willful act or by default by the department, the evidence on record is to be looked into.

            Firstly, the testimony of complainant, Sangeeta Gupta is to be taken up.  In her testimony, she has stated that she sent a gift by speed post from Delhi to Haryana on 02.05.2017 for the marriage of her relative.  The marriage was on 07.05.2017 and when she checked the status on 11.05.2017, it was shown “not delivered”.  When she again checked the status, the item was shown as  delivered on 09.05.2017.

In the testimony of Shri Mohan Singh Meena, AR of Post Office, Krishna Nagar (OP), they have admitted that respondent booked one speed post article no. ED3101220071IN on 02.05.2017 from Krishna Nagar Head Post Office which was shown as “item received on 09.05.2017” by Banswa Branch office under Hassanpur Sub Office.The final track consignment/status report was officially confirmed on 15.05.2017, copy of the track report has been exhibited as Ex.RW-2.

Thus, from the testimony of complainant, Sangeeta Gupta as well as Mohan Singh Meena, AR of OP, it is evident that the item which was booked on 02.05.2017 was delivered on 09.05.2017. The marriage of the relative of the complainant Sangeeta Gupta was on 07.05.2017 as per the invitation card filed alongwith the complaint.The fact that that article has not been delivered before 07.05.2017, which was the occasion of marriage and was delivered on 09.05.2017 as admitted by the postal authorities itself, certainly, there was delay in delivery.

The article was to be delivered as per the norms determined by the department and in a case for neighbouring state, the time prescribed has been 2-4 days as per annexure R-3.Thus, the maximum period which was tobe taken for delivery as per the norms fixed by the department was 2-4 days and in the present case, the article was booked on 02.05.2017 and was delivered on 09.05.2017 which should have been delivered on 04.05.2017 by taking two days for delivery and if the maximum period of 4 days is taken, the same should have been delivered on 06.05.2017 i.e. before themarriage ceremony, which was on 07.05.2017.However, the item has been delivered on 09.05.2017 that too after the marriage ceremony and having a delay of more than 3 days even if the maximum period of 4 days in delivery is taken.Thus, the fact remains that there has been a delay in delivery.

When there has been delay in delivery, the second question that arises for consideration has been as to whether the delay was caused fraudulently or by willful act or default.The onus to prove this lies upon the postal authorities that the delay was not fraudulent, willful or by default.For this, again the testimony of Mohan Singh Meena, AR of OP have to be looked into.In the testimony of this witness, he has only referred to the provisions of Section 6 of Indian Postal Act, 1898 as well as Gazette of India no. 26 which are the statutory provisions.Except this, no explanation has been given for the delay caused for exemption from liability.When no explanation have been given by the postal authorities for the delay occurred, certainly, it has to be inferred that the delay was willful act of the postal authorities.

When the act of the postal authorities was willful act, they cannot take the plea that the postal authorities were exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage provided under Section 6 of the Act.When there has been delay on the part of postal authorities which was willful, certainly, the postal authorities have been deficiency in their service.

Coming to the compensation part, the plea which has been taken on behalf of postal authorities is that in case of delay, compensation has to be as per the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 which says that the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the speed post charges paid.This Rule cannot be made applicable to the delay which has occurred on account of willful act.This Rule comes into play only when there has been a normal delay without any willful act.Thus, the compensation which has to be given to the complainant has to be as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

From the documents on record such as track consignment which has been filed on behalf of the complainant, it is noticed that the item was booked on 02.05.2017 and was delivered on 09.05.2017.It has been admitted by Shri Mohan Singh Meena, AR of OP that the final track report status was confirmed on 15.05.2017.The fact that the final track consignment/status report of the service was officially confirmed on 15.05.2017 and the complainant was not aware of the delivery of the item.By not knowing the status of delivery of the item/gift, which was sent by the complainant on the marriage of her relative, she remained under mental tension during this period.Thus, delay in delivery have caused mental pain and suffering for which she has to be compensated.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency on the part of postal authorities for which the complainant have to be compensated.Thus, we award compensation for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.The awarded amount be paid within a period of 60 days and if not paid within this period, the total amount ofRs. 30,000/- shall carry 6% interest from the date of order.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President