Tripura

StateCommission

A/8/2020

The Chief Postmaster General - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt Moumita Roy. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Biswanath majumder

10 Dec 2020

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

Case No. A.8.2020

1. The Chief Postmaster General,

Director Postal Services,

Delhi Circle, New Delhi - 110001.

 

2. The Chief Postmaster General,

Assam Circle, Guwahati Head Post Office,

Guwahati G.P.O. GMC, Kamrup,

Assam - 781001.

 

3. The Director,

Agartala Head Post Office,

Agartala, West Tripura,

Pin - 799001.

… … … … Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Vs

 

1. Smt. Moumita Roy,

D/o Sri Uddipanta Narayan Roy,

Of North Banamalipur, Agartala,

P.O.Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,

District: West Tripura, Pin - 799001.

… … … …  Respondent/Complainant.

2. The Proprietor,

R.D. Textiles,

Shop No.20, Shankar Bazar,

Katra Shahanshai Chandni Chowk,

Delhi - 110006.

… … … …  Respondent/Opposite Party No.4

 

Present

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya

Member,

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das

Member,

State Commission

 

 

For the Appellants:                                              Mr. Biswanath Majumdar, Ld. C.G.C.

For the Respondent/Complainant:                        Mr. Debal Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent/Opposite Party No.4:            Absent.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:             10.12.2020.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the Chief Postmaster General and two others against the judgment dated 25.02.2020 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum/Commission), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.67 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition and held that the complainant, the respondent no.1 herein, is entitled to get Rs.19,740/- out of which Rs.9.740/- being the price of the garments, Rs.6,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.4,000/- as costs of litigation from the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3. The payment is to be made within two months from the date of judgment, if not paid; it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made in full.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 i.e. the appellants herein, has preferred the instant appeal along with a petition for condoning the delay of 131 days in preferring the appeal.

The complainant side i.e. the respondent no.1 herein, has filed objection against the condonation petition. 

2. As the appellants did not appear, we have heard the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 i.e. the complainant and allowed the prayer for condonation considering the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to Covid pandemic situation and consequent thereto, appeal was admitted for hearing.
3. Today the matter is fixed for hearing.
4. Heard Mr. Biswanath Majumdar, Ld. C.G.C. appearing on behalf of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties) as well as Mr. Debal Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as complainant). None appears for the respondent no.2, Proprietor, R.D. Textiles (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.4).
5. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Complainant, Smt. Moumita Roy is an owner of one garment shop, namely, “Mayur Boutique” situated at New Bodhjung Road, North Banamalipur, Agartala. For the purpose of supplying some garments to her shop, she placed a supply order with the R.D. Textiles, Shop No.20, Shankar Bazar, Katra Shahanshai Chandni Chowk, Delhi, the opposite party no.4 on 02.07.2019. Complainant had paid the cost of the garments amounting to Rs.8,800/-, Rs.500/- for freight charge and Rs.440/- as IGST, in total Rs.9,740/- to the opposite party no.4 for sending the garments to her. According to her, the opposite party no.4 in compliance of the order placed by her booked the articles on 03.07.2019 by registered post with the opposite party no.1, the Chief Master General, Director Postal Services, Delhi Circle, New Delhi to her address vide Postal receipt No.CD448274804IN dated 03.07.2019. As the booked item was not received by her, she then visited the Agartala Head Post Office where she was informed that the articles did not reach to Agartala Post Office. As per advice of the official of Agartala Head Post Office, she registered online complaint vide No.10009414284 on 20.07.2019 with the Postal Department, Government of India ventilating her grievances for non-delivery of the booked items. She further stated in her complaint petition that on 30.07.2019 she was informed by GPO, Delhi that the article which was booked in her name was lost in transit at Guwahati, GH Division and that her complaint was closed.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3, i.e. the Postal Authority, the complainant filed a complaint petition before the learned District Forum/Commission, West Tripura, Agartala claiming Rs.59,740/- which comprises the value of the articles booked for her as Rs.9,740/-, Rs.20,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony, Rs.20,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
7. Upon receipt of the complaint petition, the learned District Forum/Commission issued notices upon the opposite parties i.e. the appellants herein, as well as the opposite party no.4.
8. The opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 appeared through their engaged Counsel before the learned District Forum/Commission. As the opposite parties failed to submit their written objection within 45 days, the learned District Forum/Commission by its order dated 05.11.2019 proceeded ex parte against the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3.
9. The opposite party no.4 after receipt of the notice appeared before the learned District Forum/Commission and submitted his written objection. In the written objection it is stated that as per supply order of the complainant, the opposite party no.4 had booked the articles from Delhi in the address of the complainant through registered post vide postal consignment No.CD448274804IN dated 03.07.2019. He further stated that when the complainant found that the booked articles did not reach her, she requested him to send the copy of the postal receipt. Accordingly, he sent the copy of the postal receipt to the complainant. It is also stated in the written objection that subsequently he was informed by the complainant that the articles which were booked were lost in transit at Guwahati. He again stated that he was not involved regarding non-delivery of the articles and that he could not be held liable for it. Thus he may be exonerating from the liability of this case.
10. The complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and submitted her examination-in- chief by way of affidavit. She produced seven documents, namely, Tax invoice dated 02.07.2019 issued by the opposite party no.4 against M/s Mayur Boutique (shop of the of the complainant) showing sale of garments worth Rs.9,740/-, copy of Postal Receipt of India Post vide No.CD448274804IN dated 03.07.2019 issued by the Delhi GPO, copy of Track Consignment of India Post against the aforesaid consignment, copy of the complaint No.10009414284 dated 29.07.2019 lodged by the complainant with the Postal Authority regarding non-delivery of the articles against the aforesaid consignment dated 03.07.2019, copy of the document dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Ministry of Electronic & Information Technology, Government of India showing receipt of the complaint which was lodged by the complainant, copy of the Track Complaint Status against complaint No.10009414284 dated 30.07.2019 issued by the India Post indicating lost of the articles in transit at Guwahati GH Division and closing of the complaint of the complainant and copy of Trade License Certificate issued by the Agartala Municipal Corporation in the name of the complainant. Those documents on identification were marked as Exhibit-1 series by the learned District Forum/Commission. The complainant was also cross-examined by the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 on law point.
11. The opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 did not adduce any documentary evidence to challenge the case of the complainant on the point of law.
12. The opposite party no.4 did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence except filing the written objection.
13. The learned District Forum/Commission after considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment.
14. It appears from the record that the Counsel of the appellants, Mr. Biswanath Majumdar on various occasions failed to appear before this Commission even so many opportunities were given to him. Even in his absence, this Commission considered the condonation petition filed by the appellants for condoning the delay of 131 days and allowed the same considering the Covid pandemic situation.
15. Mr. Majumdar Ld. CGC vehemently argued that learned District Forum/Commission while passing the impugned judgment not only committed error on facts, but also on the point of law as the learned District Forum/Commission did not consider the Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. He further argued that there is no deficiency in service so far the complainant’s case is concerned. Though he admitted that the registered articles did not reach to the complainant as those articles were lost in transit in Guwahati GH Division.
16. Mr. Saha Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum/Commission considered the evidence on record as well as the submissions of the parties on question of law. According to him, as the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 did not adduce any documentary evidence to controvert the case on the point of law thus, there was no option before the learned District Forum/Commission except to allow the complaint petition. So far the contention of Mr. Majumdar regarding Section 6 of Indian Postal Act he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Indian Postal Department & Anr. Vs Monu Jhalani (Revision Petition No.2207 of 2017).

We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and also gone though the evidence on record recorded by the learned District Forum/Commission and also the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Monu Jhalani (supra). It appears from the record of the learned District Forum/Commission that the learned District Forum/Commission while passing the impugned judgment considered the Rule 184 of the Guide of Post Office Act and not only that the learned District Forum/Commission also considered the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission i.e. Monu Jhalani (supra). We are of the view that it would be proper to reproduce the relevant portion of the findings of the learned District Forum/Commission which are quoted hereunder:-

“       We find that the case proceeded ex parte against the O.P. Nos.1,2&3 as the said O.Ps had failed to submit W.O. within 45 days as mandated under section 13(2)(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Opposite party no.4 on the other hand in his W.O. has admitted about selling of garments worth Rs.9,740/- in favour of the shop of the Complainant and dispatch of the garments by registered post in the address of the Complainant vide consignment No.CD448274804IN dated 03/07/2019 issued by the GPO, Delhi (under Exhibit-I series).

From the track complaint status of the India Post as to the complaint No.10009414284 of the complainant under Exhibit-I series it has been amply proved that the garments which were booked with the Opposite party no.1 by registered post by the Opposite party no.4 was lost in-transit at Guwahati.

We find that the articles that were sent by registered post did not mandatorily require to be insured as the item “Garment” does not find place under Rule 184 of the Guide of Post Office Act. Admittedly the articles were lost in-transit under the custody of the Opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3. Thus it was an act of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3. The complainant being the beneficiary is entitled to lodge the complaint on account of the deficiency of service committed by the Opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3.

The judgment dated 05/04/2018 passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2208 of 2017 referred to by Learned Advocate for the Complainant has been relied upon by us in deciding the case in hand in favour of the Complainant.

In view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the Complainant has succeeded in establishing her case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We find the Opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 guilty of committing deficiency of service towards the Complainant. The complainant is thus entitled to get compensation/relief.”

Therefore, according to us, this case is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Monu Jhalani (supra).

Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned District Forum/Commission did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment as the appellants herein, i.e. the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 neither filed any written objection nor adduce any evidence. Thus, no interference is called for.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum/Commission, West Tripura, Agartala.