Delhi

North

CC/160/2021

RAJAN BHATIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.: 160/2021

 

Sh. Rajan Bhatia

S/o Late Kanwar Bhan Bhatia,

3B/6, Asaf Ali Road,

New Delhi-110002,

Mob. No.9910374341,

Email id: Bhatiarajan1956@rediffmail.com.                                                   …                                Complainant

 

                                                                                                Vs

 

Postal Services Board

(Through Chairman)

Department of Posts,

Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                                              …                Opposite Party No.1

 

Chief Post Master General

Delhi Circle,

Meghdoot Bhawan, Link Road,

New Delhi-110001.

Email id: cpmg_del@indiapost.gov.in.                                                            …                Opposite Party No.2

 

Chief Post Master General

West Bengal Circle,

Yogayog Bhawan,

Kolkata-700012.

Email id: cpmgwb@indiapost.gov.in                                                                 ...            Opposite Party No.3

 

ORDER

28/08/2023

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

I.             The present complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that due to delayed delivery of Registered letter containing Buy Back Scheme offer, the Complainant suffered a loss of Rs.87,750/- (Rs. Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Only) as he could not participate in the Buy Back offer & could not tender his shares to the company in such buy back as the registered letter containing the Buy Back Scheme offer, as made and sent by the Company M/s Cheviot Company Ltd. by that registered post. This registered letter was delivered to the Complainant after the expiry of the last date for tendering of shares. As such, it has been alleged that the Complainant has suffered a monetary loss of Rs.87,750/- as after participating in the open offer & tendering his 130 shares for buy back at Rs.1,500/- per share, he would have bought back the same number of shares from the open stock market at Rs.825/- per share & been richer by Rs.87,750/- based on the price differential. The Complainant has been following this practice of tendering shares in buy back offers and buying equal number of shares from the open market whenever any open offer comes for a particular share held by him.

 

II.            It has further been alleged that gross negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party is evident. Loss to the complaint is also obvious and evident. Quantum of loss based on difference in buy back price of Rs.1,500/-  and market price at that time of Rs.825/- for 130 shares works out to Rs.87,750/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Only). In addition, the Complainant has suffered loss of interest on this amount say from 13.09.2017 onwards @ roughly 15% per annum. He has also suffered mental trauma and put to inconveniency and lost time and money in pursuit of the fact finding in enquiry, for which he deserves to be compensated by way of restitution and also in addition by way of award of damages and for which the postal department must be penalized. It has been prayed by the Complainant that:-

 

1. OPs be directed to grant compensation of Rs.87,750/- to the Complainant for direct loss.
2. OPs be directed to pay interest on the Gross buy consideration amount of Rs.1,95,000/- (130 shares @ 1500 per share) @ 15 % per annum w.e.f. 13.09.2017 (being the expected date of credit of gross consideration to the bank account of the Complainant) or in the alternative the OPs be directed to pay such interest @ 15 % on Rs.87,750/- w.e.f. 13.09.2017 and such time the compensation claimed is paid to the Complainant.
3. OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the Complainant for causing mental harassment/ anxiety.
4. OPs be directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.25,000/- as reimbursement for travelling and other expenses involved in following up this matter with postal authorities, M/s SEBI and others on numerous occasions from the year 2017 onwards.
5. OPs be directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.2,50,000/- for loss of time owing to time devoted in follow up/ resolution of this matter from 2017 onwards.
6. OPs be directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.55,000/- towards cost of litigation.

 

III.          In support of his claim, the Complainant has cited following judgments passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC & Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

1. Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 2538 of 2019 in the matter of  UNION OF INDIA Versus AMAL CHANDRA HORE passed on 06.01.2020- I(2020) CPJ 341 (NC)
2. Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 626 of 2010 in the matter of POSTMASTER GENERAL, WEST BENGAL CIRCLE GENERAL POST OFFICE (GPO) Versus DIPAK BANERJEE & ANR passed on 02.07.2015- IV(2015) CPJ 329 (NC)
3. Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 541 of 2016 in the matter of DEPARTMENT OF POSTS & ANR Versus GAJANAND SHARMA passed on 08.12.2016 - I (2017) CPJ 172 (NC)
4. Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 3117 &3118 of 2016 in the matter of FOREIGN POSTAL DEPARTMENT & ANR Versus ASHOK AGGARWAL passed on  10.01.2020-I (2020) CPJ 400 (NC)
5. Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 2508 of 2016  In the matter of  POST MASTER, POST OFFICE , MANI MAJRA Versus RIPAN KUMAR passed  on 10.01.2020-I (2020) CPJ 391 (NC)
6. Judgement of Hon’ble UTTRAKHAND SCDRC in First Appeal No. 106 of 2015 in the matter of SUPRINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE & ORS Versus

SAHAB SINGH CHAUHAN passed on 13.06.2022-III (2022) CPJ 44

IV.          Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response, the OPs have filed  reply jointly stating that the Govt. is providing only obligatory services at a heavy subsidized rates with nominal token charges and without any commercial gain. The Complainant is not a consumer in the strict sense as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It is also stated Post Offices are exempted by law from any liability of loss, miss delivery, delay  or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post vide Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 which is reproduced below:-

      Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage:

“The Govt. shall not incur liability by reasons of loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except on so far as such liability may in express terms under taken 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 wilful act or default.”

V.           It is further contended by the OPs that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has upheld the validity of Section 6 in various cases. It is further stated that the petitioner was given opportunity to prefer compensation, claim applicable to him on account of loss of his article as per postal departmental rule. The Complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file this complaint as he had not taken the service of the OPs, thus, present complaint is liable to dismiss only on this sole ground. The OPs have also referred the Rule 66-B of the Indian Postal Office Rule 1933 amended vide notification GSR40E which states that “in the event of loss domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of the composite speed post charges paid of Rs.1,000/- whichever is less”.

VI.          It is further stated by OPs that the said article no. RW897492259IN was bagged from Kolkata by the Registrar of Cheviot to the Complainant and it was received on 13.09.2017 at Indraprastha Head Office and same was delivered on same day. Regarding demand of compensation by the Complainant, the OPs have stated that as per Post Office Guide, clause 170, compensation may be granted to the sender at request to the addressee solely as an act of grace and not in consequences to any legal liability for loss or damage of content of article in course of transmission by post.

VII.        In support of their case, the OPs have also filed copies of following judgments passed by Hon’ble NCDRC & DSCDRC:-

1. Hon’ble NCDRC’s Judgement in Revision Petition No 3591/2009 in the matter of  The Chief Postmaster General & Ors Vs Mrs Pooja Gupta decided on 08.12.14
2. Hon’ble NCDRC’s Judgement in Revision Petition No. 3395/2016 in the matter of Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices Vs Sayyeda Madiha decided on 02.05.2018
3. Hon’ble NCDRC’s Judgement in Revision Petition No. 3128/2016 in the matter of Postmaster & Ors Vs Sarbeswar Sahoo decided on 9.10.2017
4. Hon’ble State Commission’s Judgement in first appeal  No. 172/2014 in the matter of SSPOS Vs Shefali Sharma Sood decided on 29.5.2018
5. Hon’ble State Commission’s Judgement in First Appeal No. 190/2016 in the matter of  Rajesh Tyagi Vs Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices passed on 30.11.2018
6. Hon’ble State Commission’s Judgement in  First Appeal No. 765/2010 and First Appeal No. 839/2010 in the matter of  Postmaster Vs M/s Nikki Overseas State Commission Judgement decided on 10.04.2018

 

VIII.       The Complainant has also filed rejoinder to the reply of OPs rebutting the defense of OPs and has affirmed about the facts & allegations explained in the complaint.

IX.          Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OPs and it has been observed that:-

1. It is not disputed that the article was booked on 10.08.2017 at Kolkata for delivery at Delhi to the Complainant but it was delivered on 13.09.2017 which cannot be considered as reasonable time for delivery of article by the Postal Department. Obviously, the article was delivered late by 33 days.
2. The Complainant has lost the opportunity to participate in the buy back offer of M/s Cheviot Company Ltd. and has also caused financial loss to the Complainant.
3. The OPs have refused to own the responsibility of the delay under the garb of Section 6 of the Postal Office Act, 1898 and Rule 66-B of the Indian Postal Office Rule 1933 amended vide notification GSR40E but there is an obvious deficiency of service on their part in non-delivery of article in time. Besides, the OPs have not conducted any enquiry to find out the reasons of this inordinate delay whether malafide or bonafide?
4. On perusal of the various judgments of Hon’ble NCDRC filed by both the parties, it has been found that the facts and circumstances of the case of the Complainant are similar to the case titled as Post Master Vs. Dipak Banerjee in Revision Petition No. 626/2010 decided on 02.07.2015 by the Hon’ble NCDRC. While deciding this case, the Hon’ble NCDRC has observed as under:-

“18.     Evidently, there was no response by the Post Master General of the State to the communication received from the State Government.  Surprisingly, even in its cryptic two page written version, filed in the District Forum, the Postal Department, except for taking shelter under Section 6 of the Act, has not even attempted to furnish any explanation for the inordinate delay of 21 days in the delivery of letter, within the State. There is not even a whisper in the reply as to whether any enquiry was conducted by the Postal Department into the cause for the delay in delivery of the subject letter.  In our opinion, the stubborn attitude of the Postal Department is deliberate attempt to hide the real reason for the wrong doing of its employee(s), in not delivering the letter within the norms prescribed by the Postal Department itself. Such recalcitrant conduct of the Postal Department, leads to an irresistible conclusion that there was willful default on the part of its official(s) which was not being disclosed and, therefore, the case of the Complainant falls within the ambit of the exception, carved out in Section 6 of the said Act. Having held so and there being clear “deficiency”, as defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act, we are of the opinion that the Forums below were justified in awarding compensation to the Complainant in terms of Section 3 of the Act, for the  mental agony suffered by him for losing a valuable chance of getting a job, because of delay in delivery of the call letter from Respondent No.2.

19.     Support is lent to our view by a five member decision of this Commission in Post Master Ranipet HO & Anr. Vs. Shri N.B. Janakiraman – 2001 (3) CPR 189 (NC). In that case, a money order sent by the Complainant was delivered to the payee after two months. In a Complaint filed by him, the Postal Department took the plea that the Complaint was barred under Section 48 (c) of the Indian Post Office Act, which provides that no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Government or its officer, inter-alia, for delay in payment of any money order, other than the fraud or willful act or default of such officer.  The State Commission, however, rejected the contention and directed payment of compensation to the Complainant. Being aggrieved, Postal Department preferred Appeal to this Commission. Dismissing the appeal, the Bench, inter-alia, held as under:-

  “      A bare perusal of Section 48 (c) would show that it does not give blank immunity to the appellants.  If there is a fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any officer of the Post Officer, appellants will certainly be liable.  It may be that fraud or wilful act has to be proved by the complainant and so also the default.  But when the default is so extensive like in the present case no proof or evidence on the part of complainant is required to prove the default on the part of the Post Office. As to what is the wilful or default, we need not go to any treatise on the interpretation of these terms or to any judgment for the purpose.  We have to see from a consumer point of view as to what is wilful or default when interpreting a particular provision.  As a matter of fact default of two months in sending the telegraphic money order could also be a wilful act.  No circumstance has been brought on record by the appellants to show that there has not been any wilful act or default on the part of any of its officers.  For this gross act of default in not sending the telegraphic money order in time after receiving charges of the same, respondent has certainly suffered a great deal of anguish and mental harassment”.

20.     Section 6 being in pari materia with Section 48 (c) of the said Act, the decision is on all fours on facts at hand.

21.    For the aforegoing reasons, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference in our limited Revisional Jurisdiction.  Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed with costs, quantified at ₹10,000/-.

22.    Vide order, dated 21.07.2010, passed by this Commission, the Petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of ₹50,000/- with the District Forum, Kolkata Unit-II.  The said amount, if deposited by the Petitioner, shall be released in favour of the Complainant along with interest accrued thereon by the District Forum. The balance amount in terms of the order passed by the District Forum, shall be paid by the Petitioner to the Complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.”

X.           Keeping in view the above observations, at (a) (b) & (c) above and the observation of the Hon’ble NCDRC discussed at (d) above, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs and the complainant may be compensated suitably. Therefore, the prayers for compensation sought by the complainant are based on hypothetical calculations made on speculative basis which does not deserve to be considered for grant of compensation. However, on the issue of deficiency of service in delivery of article, the above discussed judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case titled as Post Master Vs. Dipak Banerjee in Revision Petition No. 626/2010, has been taken into consideration being of similar facts and circumstances and found that the deficiency in service on the part of postal department was related to the delayed delivery of the appointment letter whereas in the instant case, it relates to delayed delivery of the  Registered letter containing Buy Back Scheme offer of shares. Therefore, considering the gravity & magnitude of the deficiency of the part of OPs, we feel appropriate to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)  and direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)   jointly and severally within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, as compensation to the Complainant mental pain, agony and harassment etc. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OPs to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

XI.          Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                              DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

Member                                                                           President       

            DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                   DCDRC-1 (North)