Manipur

StateCommission

A/3/2022

The Department of postal and 5 others - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri. Dheeraj Singh Moirangthem - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Salam Samarjit,Mr. I. Somorjit, Mr. K.R. Pamei

21 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
(STATE COMMISSION)
IMPHAL
MANIPUR
 
First Appeal No. A/3/2022
( Date of Filing : 16 Aug 2022 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/06/2022 in Case No. cc/1/2021 of District Bishnupur)
 
1. The Department of postal and 5 others
Department of post, DG posts, DAk Bhawan
New Delhi
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Shri. Dheeraj Singh Moirangthem
Moirang Phiwangbam Leikai
Bishnupur
Manipur
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. A.Nibedita Devi PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. M. Pemila MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. N. Banikumar Singh MEMBER
 
PRESENT:S. Vijayanand Sharma,Advocate, Proxy for Mr. Salam Samarjit,Mr. I. Somorjit, Mr. K.R. Pamei, Advocate for for the Appellant 1
 N. Prista,Advocate, for Miss. A.K. Shanarembi, Advocate for the Respondent 1
Dated : 21 Oct 2024
Final Order / Judgement

MR. N. Banikumar Singh (Hon’ble Member)

            This First  Appeal has been filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the Order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission), Bishnupur (Herein after  referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Case No. 1 of 2021.

2.         The Complainant who is the present Respondent sent a parcel containing Shirts, shoes, sporting apparels and other items from Margaon to his home at Moirang on 21.04.2021, through Post Office vide receipt of Pt No. CM693800838IN and CM693800855IN. On 28.05.2031 he was communicated by the concern postal authority that the said parcels was found in less weight and torn condition. Thereafter, the said parcels was opened in presence of the father of the Complainant at Moirang Post Office SO and found many valuable articles missing and Complainant lodged complaint in that regard to the concern Post Office authority but with no positive result thereof. Hence, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint Case No. 1 of 2021 claiming reliefs thereof.

3.         The District Commission passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2022 ordering the Opposite Parties now Appellants to refund the Cost of lost articles amounting to Rs. 41,000/- with compensation amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- for causing mental agony and loss to the Complainant and another sum of Rs. 20,000/- as cost of the complaint.

 4.        Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant preferred the present First Appeal on the following amongst other grounds :-

i)     That, Learned District Commission over looked the provision of law under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, which gives complete immunity for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post.

ii)    That, the Post Office is not a common carrier, nor an agent for the sender.

iii)   That the Complainant failed to claim that the postal authority was guilty of fraud or willful act or willful default for the pilferage of postal articles.

iv)   That there were many material irregularities while passing the impugned order.

v)    That the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

vi)  That the maximum compensation payable in case of loss of the Express parcel post or content thereof shall be restricted to Rs. 500/- or  the value of the parcel or the contents lost whichever is less as per Rule. 33.A (f)  of the Indian Postal Act. 1933.

5.         The Complainant who is the present Respondent filed his written submission refuting the claims of the Appellants on the following amongst other grounds :-

  1. The First Appeal of the Appellant is barred by limitation.
  2. Many valuable articles sent were not found in the parcels and complaint thereof was lodged to the superintendent of Post Offices, Manipur Division.
  3. The Appellants never take up any action in respect of the said Complaint ;and therefore compelled to file the consumer complaint praying for grant of reliefs.
  4. The District Commission passed the impugned order after considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and therefore the impugned order need no interference.

6.         Heard both parties at length and perused the records of the case. And, after hearing the parties and records of the First Appeal we found the first important to be considered i.e. whether the present First  Appeal is barred by limitation.

7.         Under Section 41, of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it is provided that :-

41. Appeal against the District Commission – Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.”

 

8.         On perusing the relevant record i.e. the certified copy of the impugned order it is found that :-

  1. The impugned order was passed on 29.06.2022.
  2. The Opposite parties now Appellants filed an application on 04.07.2022 for issuance of certified copy of the impugned order.
  3. The certified copy of the impugned order was issued on the same day i.e. 04.07.2022 .
  4. The present First Appeal was filed on 16.03.2022 by the Appellants.

9.         The present First Appeal was filed on 16.08.2022 i.e. on the 48th days from the date of the passing of the impugned order. And, after deducting 1 day for procuring certified copy of the impugned order the present first Appeal is deemed to have been filed on the 47th day from the date of the passing of the impugned order. Therefore, the present First Appeal was filed not within 45 days from the date of the order impugned herein. In other words there is 2 (two), days delay in filing the present First Appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

10.       Under the provision of Section 41, of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Appellants should have satisfied the Commission for entertaining the present first Appeal for not filing the same within the said period of 45 days, which/but the Appellants fails to do so. The Appellants neither made an Application nor make a prayer for condoning the said delay of 2 days in filing the present First Appeal.

11.       After perusing the relevant records and considering the facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that, the present First Appeal cannot be entertained after the expiry of  limitation period of 45 (forty five) days without any prayer for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the Present First Appeal is dismissed.

 

12.       Let a copy of this order be provided to all parties free of cost. The order also be uploaded forthwith on the web site of the Commission for perusal of the  parties.

13.       The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Commission, Bishnupur for information and necessary action.

14.       File be consigned in record room along with a copy of this order.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. A.Nibedita Devi]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. M. Pemila]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. N. Banikumar Singh]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.