STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 124 of 2020

1. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Dehradun (Utrakhand) 248001

2. Sr. Post Master, Dehradun (Utrakhand) 248001

                                                                                                                                                                   … Appellants

Versus

Ramkeshwar Singh, S/o- Late Bindeshwari Singh, Resident of Village- Sakhmohan, PS- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur

                                                                                                                                           …. Opposite Party/Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Sudhir Kumar Tiwary

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Satendra Kumar Dubey

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 19.06.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of Postal department for setting aside the order dated 20.03.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint Case no. 204 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the District Consumer Forum has directed appellant /Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 40,042/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of order failing which interest @10% shall become payable from 28.03.2016.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that  complainant prepared a map in guidance of Architect Dr. R.B. Rai, Dehradun for reconstruction and renovation of his Maa Kalika Complex located at Bhola talkies chowk, Dharampur, Samastipur, and same was approved by Samastipur Municipality and for further correction in the map he send the map on 28.03.2016 by registered parcel on his address to Dehradun mentioning pin code-248001 but the registered parcel was not delivered to him.
3. Complainant tried to trace out the registered parcel but was not successful then he wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Post, Samastipur who after making necessary enquiry informed that registered parcel got lost in transit.
4. Thereafter, no effort was made by opposite parties to trace the lost registered parcel as such complainant gave a legal notice but did not receive any response from opposite parties and thereafter filed a consumer complaint case against the opposite parties for deficiency in service as complainant suffered a loss of about Rs. 1,00,000/- for negligent act of opposite parties and further claimed compensation for physical and mental harassment and cost of litigation with interest.
5. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement stating therein that the registered parcel got lost during the course of transit. It was further stated that the notice of applicant was received on 16.11.2016 and same was replied on 23.11.2016. It was further stated that the registered parcel was lost in course of transmission and there is no willful act or default on the part of department.
6. Section 6 of Indian Post office Act, 1898 exempts the department in such matters. Department was not aware of the contents of the article. The lost article did not contain any intrinsic value and articles were not insured as such loss of article can only be dealt as per departmental rules pertaining to loss of registered parcels.
7. Section 6 of the Act, reads as follows:

Sec-6 Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.

          The govt. shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery and 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 be 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 willful act or default.

8.  The District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record held that it is an admitted fact that registered parcel send by complainant did not reach its destination and was lost in transit. Complainant comes within the definition of consumer. The complaint case does not suffer from any non-joinder of necessary party.
9.  The District Consumer Forum has further held that the contention of appellant/postal department that in view of section-6 of Postal Act, there is no responsibility of postal department unless and until the article is insured under section 184 of the Act is not acceptable. The District Consumer Forum has relied upon the judgment filed by appellant in which under similarly placed circumstances the consumer forum had granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.
10. The District Consumer Forum held that appellants are responsible for deficiency in service and granted Rs. 25,000/- as loss suffered for map and Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation and Rs. 42/- as cost incurred in sending the registered parcel to be paid within 45 days failing which interest @10% shall become payable from 28.03.2016, aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed on behalf of postal department.
11. It is submitted on behalf of counsel for the appellant that there is no deficiency in service on part of postal department as per rules of the department. The postal department is only responsible for insured article. Complainant booked ordinary registered parcel as such he is entitled for Rs. 100/- only in case of non-delivery or delay in delivery of the article. Under rule -6 of the Postal Act.
12.  Heard counsels for the parties.
13. Main objective of Consumer Protection Act is to provide better protection of the interest of Consumers. A cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal mechanism is provided under the act. Having due regard to the scheme and purpose sought to be achieved, the provisions of the Act have to be given purposive, broad and positive construction when section 3 of the Act provides that the remedy under the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other provision of law.
14. Any short coming, in perfection or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance amounts to deficiency in service if the service provider does not deliver the parcel and is lost in transit the consumer is entitled to reasonable compensation for the mental agony, harassment and other suffering undergone by him.
15. In said view of the matter the plea taken by the Postal department that they are not liable for any loss to the complainant can not be accepted.
16.  There is no merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                 (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                  President

Md. Fariduzzama