STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

1.     Post Office, Manimajra Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

2.     General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

                                                                .…Appellants

                                Vs.

Sh.Jaskaran Singh Gill r/o H.No.5452/2, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh

                                                                …. Respondent 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

                SHRI. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Present:   Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

                Respondent Exparte.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This is an appeal filed by the Opposite Parties (now appellants) against the order, dated 07.09.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 20 of 2011 vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OPs as under:-

“In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following direction to the OPs: -

(i)       to refund an amount of Rs.6,370/-  to the complainant being the speed post charges paid by him.

(ii)      to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

(iii)    to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 

11.           This order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.11,370/- i.e. (Rs.6,370 + Rs.5,000) to the complainant along with penal interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e.18.11.2010 till its realization besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                    The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant booked a parcel through Speed Post with Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Post Office, Manimajra, Chandigarh, containing two suits and a number of cosmetic items, for being delivered to his sister namely Kulvinder Kaur Bhatti at 12336, 80 Avenue Surrey, B.C. V3W3A2, Canada, and paid Rs.6,370/- as fee for it. It was stated that the complainant purchased the alleged articles for a sum of Rs.16,413/- from Chawla Emporium, and Sharma Traders, vide Bill (photocopies on record).     It was further stated that the said parcel did not reach its destination, and he enquired about the status of the same a number of times, from Post Office, Manimajra, Chandigarh, as well as General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh. However, no satisfactory reply was given to him. Finally, it was informed by Opposite Party No.2, that the said parcel was delivered to one Mr.A.Panwar at ETOBICOKE Toronto, Canada on 05.10.2010. It was further stated that wrong delivery of the parcel, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in service, and indulgence of unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In their written version filed by the Opposite Parties, it was admitted that on 30.09.2010, the complainant booked a parcel containing some article bearing No.EP043677329IN from Post Office, Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh for being delivered to his sister namely Kulwinder Kaur Bhatti residing at 12336, 80 Avenue Surrey, B.C. V3W3A2, Canada. It was stated that the said parcel was instantly consigned to Delhi Foreign Post through National Speed Post Centre, Chandigarh on 30.9.2010 vide Bag No. EP044514556IN. It was further stated that the web complaint regarding non-delivery of the parcel was lodged on 29.10.2010, under Web Base Grievances Mechanism. It was further stated that Delhi SPC did not send reply till October 2010. On 20.12.2010, the said SPC replied on web that the Speed Post Article was delivered on 05.10.2010. It was further stated that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the Opposite Parties are exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to the consignment. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties submitted that as per the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Opposite Parties are exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to the consignment.  Section  6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 reads as under:-

“6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage.—The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided and no officer 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.”

He further submitted that, on this point, the law has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments titled The Director Postal Services A & N Inlands, Port Blair and another versus Shyamali Ganguly, 2003(3) CLT-582 (NC) and Union of India Vs. Puran Chandra Joshi –2006(3) CLT-47 (NC) which relate to speed post deliveries. He further submitted that the present case is with regard to the speed post delivery, and, therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, the respondent is not entitled to the refund of speed post charges paid by him and the compensation for mental agony, harassment etc.  He further submitted that as per Rule 66-B –Inland Speed Post Service, which was amended vide notification No.GSR 43-4/87-BDD dated 22.01.1999 issued by the General manager (BD),  in the event of loss of speed post article, loss of contents or damage to the contents, the compensation payable to the customer will be double, the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- whichever is less. He further submitted that the respondent/complainant is only entitled to get maximum compensation of Rs.1000/-.

9.                    After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions  of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and Rule 66-B –Inland Speed Post Service, which was amended vide notification No.GSR 43-4/87-BDD dated 22.01.1999 issued by the General Manager (BD),  we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint in the manner, and to the extent, referred to above, by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the Postmaster General kerala and others Vs. kiron Rasheed, Revision Petition no.781 of 2010 decided on 31.03.2011,  wherein, the Statutory Rule 66-B-Inland Speed Post Service amended up-to-date  had not been dealt with. According to the amended Rule 66-B aforesaid, the complainant was only entitled to a sum of Rs.1000/-, as maximum compensation, and was not entitled to the refund of speed post charges, as well as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum also appears to be on the higher side. Thus, the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be modified.

10.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties is partly accepted with no order as to costs and the impugned order of the District Forum, is modified as under: -

i)      The appellants/Opposite Parties  are directed to pay Rs.1,000/-  as per Rule 66-B-Inland Speed Post Service (amended up-to-date) to the respondent/complainant.

ii)     The appellants/Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation instead of Rs.7000/- as awarded by the District Forum.

                The order be complied with, by the appellants/Opposite Parties, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.1000/- alongwith penal interest @ 9% P.A.. to the respondent/complainant, from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 18.11.2010, till its realization, besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation, referred to above.

11.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

30. 01.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                            Sd/-                             [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

Sd/-

                                                                 [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

                                                                                                MEMBER

Cmg