Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he hired the services of Make My Trip.com for holiday trips alongwith his family members from Delhi to Singapore from 25th July, 2015 against the total consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- (Appox). The Opposite Parties undertaken to get complete formalities at their end including approval of visa etc. and accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.96,674/- online through is accounts on 27.06.2015 and the remaining amount was to be paid after getting visa approval well before start of holiday trip. Make my trip advised the complainant to send their passport to their official for getting approval of Visa through competent authority at their own behalf. The complainant booked one speed post articles weighting 270 gms having their original passport of self, wife and children in the name of Sh.Pulkesh Kumar Executive Visa ops, make my trip.com.243 SP Infocity, Udyog, Gurgaon from Opposite Party No.1 and said speed post articles was handed over to the Opposite Party No.1 in the fully packed and sealed conditions. In this regard, Opposite Party No.1 issued receipt No.EP213684967IN dated 01.07.2015 and charged Rs.68/- in cash from the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant that said speed post article be reached at its destination within 2-3 days, but it failed to reach the destination. Thereafter, the complainant made so many correspondence with the Opposite Parties, but to no affect. After long period, Opposite Party No.3 vide its letter dated 09.10.2015 addressed to Opposite Party No.2 and complainant disclosed that as per the updation made by Opposite Party No.4 in the web complaint No.100063-54857 on 27.09.2015 the article in question might be lost in transit. In this way, the Opposite Parties failed to render the requisite services to the complainant and the complainant suffered huge mental tension and harassment due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.40,000/- for making new passports and costs of old passport lost in transit and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony, financial loss, besides Rs.7500/- as costs of litigation.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. In fact, the Opposite Parties have not lost the said parcel fraudulently or by their wilful act or default as alleged. It is also admitted that the web complaint No. 100063-54857 was registered on 03.07.2015 regarding said article and thereafter, the reply of the said complaint was sent by the Gurgaon Division on 27.09.2015 that the article could not be traced, may be lost in transit. As per the Indian Post Office Rules, the compensation for loss of speed post article is Double the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- whichever is less has been fixed by the government and the same can not be exceed and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R6 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that due to loss of the speed post article in which the original passports were sent to make my trip, he suffered great financial as well as mental tension and harassment, which can not be though compensated in the shape of money, but still claimed Rs.40,000/- for making new passports and costs of old passport lost in transit and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony, financial loss, besides Rs.7500/- as costs of litigation. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that Opposite Parties have not lost the said parcel fraudulently or by their wilful act or default as alleged. It is also admitted that the web complaint No. 100063-54857 was registered on 03.07.2015 regarding said article and thereafter, the reply of the said complaint was sent by the Gurgaon Division on 27.09.2015 that the article could not be traced, may be lost in transit. As per the Indian Post Office Rules, the compensation for loss of speed post article is Double the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- whichever is less has been fixed by the government and the same can not be exceed and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. But we do not agreed with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties. It is not denied that for tracing or for reaching the original passports of the complainant himself, his wife and children the complainant made so many representations with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not pay an heed to the requests of the complainant, rather simply told that article could not be traced, may be lost in transit. As per the Indian Post Office Rules, the compensation for loss of speed post article is Double the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- whichever is less has been fixed by the government and the same can not be exceed. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and have examined the material on record. From the records, it is clear that so many complaints were filed by the complainant with Opposite Parties without any enquiry in the matter. In this regard, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 lays down the following:-
“6.Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far 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, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.”
8. From the above, it is clear that this Section will not give immunity to the department or the employee if an employee is found delinquent in his duty if an inquiry is done, whereas in the present case, the department has not conducted any inquiry though it was possible to conduct such an inquiry as the complaint was received when the records were not weeded out. Therefore, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not give immunity to the postal department in the present case as the department was not able to reach to any conclusion whether any employee was delinquent in his duty which could be treated as his wilful act or default.
9. Moreover, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 clearly states that the exemption provided under this Section is not applicable where the Central Government has undertaken such liability in express terms. In the scheme of speed post, the Central Government has undertaken the liability of delivery of the speed post article within a certain period of time and has also taken the liability of refund of the speed post charges if item is not delivered or mis-delivered or there is delay in delivery. Hence, as per the provision contained in the Section itself, this Section does not seem to be applicable in the matters of deficiency in the delivery of speed post articles. In this regard, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2979 of 2017 decided on 13.02.2019 in case titled as Dr.Ravi Aggarwal Vs. Speed Post, Rajasthan University & Anr. also held so.
10. Hon’ble Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No.468 of 2018, Post Office, Hissar (Through Superintendent of Post Offices) Vs. Shri Dilwan Singh, decided on 19.09.2018, (NC) has also observed the following:-
“16. So far as the postal services are concerned, these services are also covered under the definition of services under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, as a bare reading of Section 2(o) will clarify which reads as under:-
“ “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;
17. From the above provision, it is very clear that the list of services in the Section is only illustrative and not exhaustive because the Section itself says that services of any description which are made available to potential users are covered and are not limited to the list given in the section.
18. So far as the question of compensation for delay in delivery of the Speed Post is concerned, once the complainant has been found to be a consumer and his eligibility to avail the relief under Consumer Protection Act is established, the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be fully applicable in the present case. Section 14 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:-
“14. Finding of the District Forum-
(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party:”
19. From the above provision, it is clear that the District Forum is competent to award compensation keeping in view loss and injury sustained by the complainant due to negligence of opposite party.”
11. In nut shell it can be said that the person who has sent the speed post is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he has paid the speed post charges for getting the services of the speed post delivery. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the remedies under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional remedy available to a consumer. As seen above, in the case of speed post, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not seem to be applicable, the remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Hence, as observed by this Commission in Post Office, Hissar (Through Superintendent of Post Offices) Vs. Shri Dilwan Singh, this District Consumer Commission is empowered to award compensation to the complainant.
12. So far as question of compensation is concerned, the complainant has claimed Rs.40,000/- for making new passports and costs of old passport lost in transit and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony, financial loss, besides Rs.7500/- as costs of litigation, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of such extent appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.68/- (Rupees sixty eight only) to the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
14. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
