Delhi

East Delhi

CC/631/2016

VIKRANT - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2019

ORDER

                         CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                

                                                                                                  Consumer Complaint no.          631/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  14/12/2016

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 01/08/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          05/08/2019  In matter of-

 

Mr. Vikrant @ Vikas         

S/o Fateh Singh    

R/o  9/478, Khichdi Pur, Delhi 110091.………..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1- Post Office, Vasundhara Enclave,

Delhi 110096

 

2-Head Post Office

Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051……………..………………….…….Opponents

 

Complainant                                        In Person  

Opponent 1&2 Advocate                  Mr A N Singh 

                            

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case -

Complainant booked Homeopathic medicine costing Rs 960/-(Ex CW1/1) to his sister at Meerut through speed post vide ED no. 1481373541N from OP1/Vasundhara post office, Delhi on 14/10/2016, but said packet was not received at given address so after inquiry from local and Head Office at Krishna Nagar, Delhi/OP2 was told that article was properly sent through NSH Ghaziabad, UP but no satisfactory reply was given even after 8-10 days so sent written complaint to OP1 and OP2 (Ex CW1/2 & 3) on dated 24^th and 25^th Nov. 2016.

It was stated that due to non receiving of said medicine (Homeo), her health condition got deteriorated due to deficient services of OPs, so filed this complaint and claimed cost of medicine Rs 960/-with compensation Rs 50,000/-for mental harassment and legal expenses Rs 20,000/-.  

OP admitted that the said article was booked at OP1 office on 14/10/2016 through speed post vide ED148137354IN to Meerut, but said article was not delivered at the recipient address. On conducting inquiry from NSH Ghaziabad range which stated as ‘lost’ on 18/10/2016.

OP stated that timely replies were sent to complainant on his complaints and status of inquiry (Ex OPW/1A & 2A). It was also stated that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, OP were exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damages unless caused the same fraudulently or by willful act or default (Ex OPW/1.

It was also stated that as per Gazette of India no. 26, Extraordinary part II, section 3, sub section (I), GSR 40 (E) published on 21sth. January 1999 stated that compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post article or loss of its contents or damages to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs 1000/- whichever is less ( Ex  OPW/2 ).

OP denied all allegations of deficiency in their services based on false ground of medical conditions, any proof of medicines and financial harassment due to speed post cost for article for Rs 39/-. So complaint based on false and misconceived facts would be dismissed.  

Complainant in his rejoinder stated that his facts were correct and true and OP had submitted all wrong replies and relied on all the facts of his complaint. He also submitted evidences on his own affidavit where he affirmed that evidence of medicine was correct (Ex CW1/1) and explanations given to OPs (Ex CW1/2 & 3). So his complaint may be allowed.  

Evidences of OP were submitted through Md Annu Pal, Sr. Supdt. Post Office at Head office Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051 and relied on annexures (1&2) as the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and Gazette notification of Govt. of India with replies to complainant (Ex OPR/1A & 2A). Hence based on their evidences, complaint may be dismissed. OP also submitted written arguments supporting their services (OPW/3&4) as per the Gazette in reference to citations as –

 

• RP 3395/2016 –NC in Sr Supdt of Post Offices, East Div. Delhi vs Sayyeda Madiha (decided on 02/05/2018) where respondent/complainant was not entitled for any compensation. NC also relied on RP 15/1997 in Head Post Master Kurukshetra Haryana vs Vijay Ratan Agarwal & others.
• WPC 313/2015 in Post Master Jagdal puir, Basti, Chattisgarh vs Ms Kiran Nag, High court of Chhattisgarh where it was decided that respondent/ complainant was not entitled for any compensation, but entitled for composite amount of the article booked through speed post.

Written arguments were taken on record. Arguments were heard from Ld counsel for OP and complainant in person. After perusal of evidences, order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that complainant had sent a mere certificate of a Homeo doctor stating that sister of the complainant was suffering from Psoriasis (a type of chronic skin disease) and took Homeopathic treatment long back and had charged Rs 986/-for one month treatment including his consultation charges. There is no evidence on record in respect of the medicine sent.

Considering OP evidence (Ex OPW/1A & 2A) that the said article was ‘lost’ at NSH Ghaziabad on route to Meerut, certainly amounts deficiency in the services of OP. Considering Gazette notification for Indian Post Office, OP would be liable to compensate double to the amount of speed post charges or Rs 1000/-which ever was less. The same facts were taken in to consideration in above two citations submitted by the OP (OPW/3 & 4).

Hence we come to the conclusion that OP2 would pay Rs 1000/- in reference to the Gazette notification and admission of OP2 for the loss of article at Ghaziabad. The amount Rs 1000/-will be paid by the OP2 within 30 days from the receiving copy of this order. As OP1 was a simple receiver of article and forwarding unit to their Head Office/OP2 after taking speed post charges Rs 39/-so compensation would be paid by OP2. There shall be no liability on OP1 and no other order to cost.  

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18(6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                    Sukhdev Singh

          Member                                                                                                              President