DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2024
Filed on: 19/07/2023
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO. 468/2023
COMPLAINANT
S. Anilkumar, Kadavanakal House, RRRRA No. 57, Rice Research Road, Ponnurunni, Vyttila P.O.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Senior Postmaster, Ernakulam Head Post Office, Kochi 682011.
F I N A L O R D E R
V. Ramachandran, Member:
This complaint is filed by the Sri. S. Anilkumar alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of Senior Postmaster, Head Post Office, Ernakulam. The complainant states that he had sent a consignment on 05/12/2023 through EIBC as per Consignment No. EL239056955IN into the name of his daughter who is at United Kingdom. Since the parcel had not been delivered to the addressee the complainant enquired the reason with the opposite party and the opposite party informed the complainant that the parcel was delivered to the addressee. Since the parcel has not been received by the addressee the complainant enquired the matter through his daughter and filed a complaint before Parcel Force World Wide which is an Institution dealing with the parcel from India. Since they have replied that they have not received the parcel the complainant approached the opposite party again and filed a complaint and opposite party had given the details of tracking in which it seen that the parcel was delivered into the correct address. The complainant’s allegation is that delivery will be fulfilling only when the parcel reaches the addressee which has not been taken place in this case.
The complainant thereafter filed a complaint before the Chief Postmaster, Thiruvananthapuram but no reply has not been received yet. Therefore the complainant approached this Commission seeking for getting refund of parcel charge along with other reliefs.
Upon notice opposite party entered into appearance and filed their version.
In the version the opposite parties contented that the international speed post parcel was delivered at Edinburgh, United Kingdom on 21/12/2022. As per the tracking report, the parcel was received by “A Kumar” for which electronic signature of recipient is available with foreign administration. It is submitted that complainant has raised a grievance to the opposite party on 31/01/2023, alleging that the parcel was not delivered. Status of the parcel as “DELIVERED” was intimated to the complainant in writing by the opposite party on 28/02/2023. Further on 02/06/2023, the complainant had again preferred a grievance to Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle. As the delivered status of the parcel has already been communicated to the complainant, this was again not communicated to the complainant. Aggrieved by this, the instant consumer complaint was filed praying for compensation. The foreign parcel to United Kingdom was received by “A KUMAR” with electronic signature updation. Name of the addressee of the parcel is “Gayaythri Kadavanakal Anil Kumar”. As most of the European countries use last name as first name, the name of the addressee may perhaps be shown as “A. KUMAR” in lieu of “Anil Kumar”. If so, the parcel was delivered correctly. Opposite party further submitted that complainant has preferred his second complaint after three months ie. 02/06/2023 from the date of initial reply (28/02/2023). The complaint involved with foreign countries are being managed through i-Care Portal. I-Care is UPU’s (Universal Postal Union) customer related system for EMS (Express Mail Service) related inquiries. In the said portal, there is no option to re-register a complaint beyond 3 months of furnishing the reply. Had the complainant preferred the second complaint within 3 months of getting initial rely, an inquiry could have been conducted at the end of foreign administration to identify whether any case of wrong delivery occurred at the delivery point. The risk of repetition that department has proceeded with enquiry of the article with foreign administration timely based on the grievance of the complainant. Ultimately delivery report provided by the destination country was not acceptable to the complainant. But the complainant has submitted his inadmissibility of the delivery report only after 3 months, making it as time barred.
As per Rules contained in Rule 14 of Post Office Guide Part II, “articles are delivered in the country of destination according to their internal legislation and regulations and this varies widely from country to country. The Indian Postal Department is not responsible for the manner in which an article is delivered, if it is done in accordance with the legislation or regulations of the destination country”.
Moreover, opposite party is discharging a statutory service as laid down in Indian Post Office Act & India Post Office Rules. No wilful act was established nor contented by the complainant. There is no allegation of fraud or wilful negligence on the part of any officials in the department. Besides, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 grants complete immunity to the Government for the liability of loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to the postal articles.
The complainant had produced 4 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A4. Exbt. A1 is the copy of complaint filed by the complainant and reply received from the opposite party, Exbt. A2 is the copy of bill, Exbt. A3 is e-mail communications between complainant’s daughter and Parcel Force Worldwide and Exbt. A4 is the photograph of parcel. There is no documentary evidence from the side of opposite party.
From the above documents and also from the facts and figures submitted by complainant the Commission has verified the following points:
- Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
- Cost of the proceedings if any?
On going through the complaint and from the evidence produced by complainant it can be seen that the complainant had sent a postal article as per Exbt. A2 and Exbt. A4 is a photograph of said parcel which can be seen from the address shown on it. Exbt. A3 is copy of e-mail communication received from Parcel Force Worldwide in which it can be seen that the parcel is delivered after reviewing the details of tracking.
Circumstances being so it can’t be ascertained from the records which are brought before the Commission as to whether any deficiency of service is occurred from the part of the opposite party mainly because of the reasons that there is no bonafide proof to establish the non-delivery of parcel to the addressee and examination of any of the opposite party witnesses from destination point also has not been made since the incident took place outside the country. Moreover the subject matter of the complaint is one which requires wide extensive investigation which is not possible in summary trial since it is matter happened out of Nation. Complainant had not proved with adequate evidence his claims on merit and therefore Point No. (1) is found against the complainant. Since Point No. (1) is found against the complainant Point No. (2) and (3) decided accordingly and hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18th day of June, 2024
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exbt. A1: Copy of complaint filed by the complaint and reply received from the opposite party
Exbt. A2: Copy of Bill
Exbt. A3: Copy of -mail communications between complainant’s daughter and Parcel Force Worldwide
Exbt. A4: Photograph of parcel.
Opposite party’s Exhibits
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 468/2023
Order Date: 18/06/2024
