Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/701

Neeraj Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr. Supdt. of Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Gupta

30 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No: 701 of 10.10.2014

                                                                   Date of Decision: 30.03.2015

                    

Neeraj Gupta aged about 44 years, s/o Sh.Sat Pal Gupta, C/o M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation, Nirmal Market, Gill Road, Ludhiana.

.….Complainant

Versus 

1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, City Division, Head Post Office Building, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana.

2. The Chief Post Master (General), Punjab Circle, Sandesh Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Site no.14, Chandigarh.

3. The Post Master, Miller Ganj Post Office, Ludhiana.

4. The Post Master, Labour Colony Post Office, Kalsian Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                    Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:     Sh.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   

ORDER

 (R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Neeraj Gupta s/o Sh.Sat Pal Gupta, C/o M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation, Nirmal Market, Gill Road, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, City Division, Head Post Office Building, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to pay Rs.20,043.45p alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. alongwith compensation of Rs.1.00 lac and litigation cost of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant alongwith any other additional or alternative relief in addition to the relief already prayed for.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had booked a parcel/article from the OP4 situated at Labour Colony, Gill Road, Ludhiana on 16.5.14, vide receipt no.EP238086491IN from Ludhiana to Imphal and the said parcel/article was to be delivered to Taraun Kumar C/o N.Noyon Singh & Sons, Paona Bazar, Imphal (Manipur) and the weight of the said parcel/article was 100650 gm and the complainant has paid Rs.1034/- for the delivery of the said parcel/article. At the time of booking of the said parcel/article, the officials of the OP4 have assured the complainant that the said article will be delivered to Imphal safely within 72 hours from Ludhiana to Imphal i.e.to the destination. But the said parcel/article was not delivered to its destination and the said fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant by said Tarun Kumar to whom the said parcel/article was to be delivered and after enquiry, it was found that the said parcel/article was torn by someone and he removed the goods lying in the parcel and he has placed some books and torn papers in place of the goods send by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached OPs, who disclosed that the said parcel was found in torn position and the goods lying in the said parcel were not intact and the OPs on 3.6.14 had made the inventory of the articles lying in the said torn parcel and the complainant has made the statement that the said items are not related to him and the complainant has submitted his claim with the OPs. Even a registered postal letter was sent to the OP3 on 5.6.14 and a sum of Rs.20,043.45p and postal charges of Rs.1034/- were demanded by the complainant from the OPs, but the OPs failed to do the needful and have flatly refused to pay the said claim amount to the complainant. Complainant has got served a legal notice dated 5.7.14, through his counsel, but inspite of the receipt of the said notice, the Ops have failed to do the needful. Thereafter on 1.9.14, the complainant has received a letter from the OPs, in which, they have offered the compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant, which has given a cause of action to the complainant to file the present complaint. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has got no cause of action against the OPs; the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the matter of dispute, which can be decided only by a competent civil court and the same cannot be decided in the summary procedure  under the Consumer Protection Act; the complainant does not come within the definition of a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Further submitted that no compensation is permissible in view of the Post Office Guide and the provision of the Indian Post Office Act 1898. The compensation cannot be awarded on the basis of the imaginary loss particularly when the contents of the article transmitted by the complainant were not known to the OPs. At the time of the booking of the article, the complainant has not disclosed the contents of the article and the value of the article. The valuable article cannot be sent through the post office without disclosing the contents and value of the article at the time of booking of the article. The complainant could have sent the alleged valued article under the insured cover by paying the requisite fee and only then the complainant may have a claim for the amount insured. The insurance facility of the article is provided by the Post Offices and if the valuable item had been sent, then the complainant was bound to send the same under the insurance cover and the post office then may bear the liability of the insured article in the terms of the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act 1894. Section 31 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 gives the power to the Central Government to require the insurance of the postal article and section 32 of the post office act 1898 gives the power to the Central Government to make rules as to insurance of postal article. As per rule 184 (2) of the Post Office Guide Part-I the insurance is mandatory for at least the amount specified for recovery from the addressee in the case of all valuable articles on which the amounts specified for recovery exceeds Rs.100/-. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any compensation except provided as per rules. The complainant has not got the article insured from the OPs, therefore the liability of the OP/department of posts is only limited in case of damage/mis-delivery/non delivery of the article as provided u/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1989 and Rule 66 (B) of the India Post Office Rules 1933. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 is as follows:-

“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 herein after provided and not 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.”

 

                   Further mentioned the conditions of rule 66 (B), which is as follows:

 

“In case of any delay of domestic Speed Post Parcels beyond the norms determined by the department of post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite Speed Post Charges paid. In the event of loss of domestic Speed Post Article of loss of its contents or damages to the contents compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/-, whichever is less.”

4.                In order to prove his case, Ld. counsel for complainant placed on record affidavit of complainant Sh.Neeraj Gupta, aged about 44 years, s/o Sh.Sat Pal Gupta, C/o M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation, Nirmal Market, Gill Road, Ludhiana Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OPs has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Suresh Kumar, Superintendent of Post Offices Ludhiana, City Division Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also placed on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and Ex.R3/A.

5.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record placed on file.              

6.                Ld. Counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved fact that the complainant had booked a parcel/article from the OP4 situated at Labour Colony, Gill Road, Ludhiana on 16.5.14, vide receipt no.EP238086491IN from Ludhiana to Imphal and the said parcel/article was to be delivered to one Tarun Kumar C/o N.Noyon Singh & Sons, Paona Bazar, Imphal (Manipur) and the weight of the said parcel/article was 100650 gms and complainant paid Rs.1034 for the delivery of the said parcel. But the OPs failed to do any needful and said parcel was not delivered to its destination. It is further contended that it was brought to the notice of the complainant and after enquiry it was found that the said parcel/article was torn by someone and he has removed the goods lying in the parcel/article and had placed some books and torn papers in place of the goods send by the complainant. Complainant lodged the complaint with the Ops and complainant demanded a sum of Rs.20,043.45p value of the goods and postal charges of Rs.1034/- from the OPs. However, the Ops offered the compensation of Rs.1000/-, which has given a cause of action to the complainant to file the present complaint. Ld. counsel for complainant has also relied upon the judgements passed in cases titled as Air Star Express Courier Vs Inder Medical Store and another- 2012 (2) CPC 586 passed by Hon’ble National Commission, Sub Post Master, Post Office and another Vs Sahib Singh- 2011 (I) CPC 542 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab.

7.                On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OPs has contended that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as complainant does not come within the definition of a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The compensation cannot be awarded on the basis of the imaginary loss particularly when the contents of the article transmitted by the complainant were not known to the OPs. The Insurance facility of the article is provided by the Post Offices and if the valuable item had been sent, then the complainant was bound to send the same under the insurance cover and the post office then may bear the liability of the insured article in the terms of the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1989 and the post office guide and rules and regulations framed under various sections of the Indian Post Office Act 1898. Further the complainant has not got the article insured from the OPs, therefore the liability of the OPs department of posts in only limited in case of damage/mis-delivery/non delivery of the article as provided u/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and Rule 66 (B) of the Indian Post Office Rules 1933. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office act 1898 is as follows:-

“The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post, except insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as herein after 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.”

 

                   Further Ld. counsel for Ops has relied upon conditions of rule 66 (B), which is as follows:-

“In case of any delay of domestic Speed Post Parcels beyond the norms determined by the department of post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite Speed Post Charges paid. In the event of loss of domestic Speed Post Article of loss of its contents or damages to the contents compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/-, whichever is less.”

                   Further the OPs have already offered the compensation to the complainant and complainant can receive the said amount from the OPs. Ld. counsel for Ops also relied upon the judgements passed in cases titled as Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshetrs, Haryana and others Vs Vijay Rattan Aggarwal passed in Revision Petition no.15 of 1997, Union of India and others Vs Brahm Dev Upadhya in Revision Petition no.1006 of 2001, Varun Gag Vs Assistant Post Master, Post Office & others passed by Hon’ble National Commission, Union of India Vs Mohd. Nazim-1980 AIR (SC) 431 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, T.K.Raghavan Vs Union of India-1988 AIR Kerala 218 passed by Kerala High Court, Union of India Vs Dr.Puran Chandra Joshi-III (2006) CPJ 120 (NC) passed by Hon’ble National Commission, The Post Master, Imphal & others Vs Dr.Jamini Devi Sagolband-I (2000) CPJ 28 (NC) passed by Hon’ble National Commission.

8.                We have considered the rival contentions of Ld. counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire record placed on file.

9.                It is undisputed facts between the parties that the complainant had booked a parcel/article from OP4, vide receipt no.EP238086491IN from Ludhiana to Imphal and the said parcel/article was to be delivered to Taraum Kumar C/o N.Noyon Singh & Sons, Paona Bazar, Imphal (Mainpur). The said parcel/article was not delivered to its destination i.e. to Taraun Kumar, due to the reason that the said parcel/article was torn by someone and he has removed the goods lying in the parcel and had placed some books and torn papers in place of the goods sent by the complainant to the said Tarun Kumar. Complainant approached the OPs for the payment of goods of the article as well as for the refund of Rs.1034/- which was given by the complainant as postal charges. It is undisputed facts that the parcel was found in torn position and the goods lying in the said parcel were not intact. This fact also find corroboration from the letter of the OPs Ex.R1 and Ex.R3. An amount of Rs.1000/- was offered by the Ops on account of compensation, which was refused by the complainant himself.

10.              The only bone of contention is between the parties is qua the compensation. Ld. counsel for the Ops has contended that as per the provision of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and rules thereunder the liability of the Ops is only to the extent of Rs.1000/- only and relied upon the provision of the section 6 of the Indian Post Office act, 1898, which is as follows:

“The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post, except insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as herein after 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.”

                   Ld. counsel for OPs also relied upon condition 5 of rule 66 (B) of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, which provides as under:-

                        “In case of any delay of domestic Speed Post Parcels beyond the norms determined by the department of post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite Speed Post Charges paid. In the event of loss of domestic Speed Post Article of loss of its contents or damages to the contents compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/-, whichever is less.”

 

                   It is apparent from this provision of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 that no doubt The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post, except 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. Since it is proved facts that parcel/article, which was dispatched and got booked by the complainant to one Sh.Tarun Kumar, through the OPs, but the same was not delivered in safe position and the parcel was torn by someone and he has removed the goods lying in the parcel and he has placed some books and torn papers in place of the goods sent by the complainant. So, it appears that it is an act of fraud and willful default on the part of the officials of the OPs, so OPs cannot escape from their liability. The complainant has also placed on record the copy of the Sale Invoice regarding the costs of the articles, which is Ex.C2 for Rs.20,043.45p. So it appears that the OPs have not taken the consideration this fact in order to effect their liability. Further we find force from the judgement passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled as “Sub Post Master, Post Office and another Vs Sahib Singh- 2011 (I) CPC 542, wherein it was held that Postal Services-Bank draft not delivered- A bank draft of Rs.20,000/- sent through speed post was never delivered to addressee- District Forum holding appellant/OP liable directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for negligence on the part of OP. Appeal filed- Plea takn by the appellant that section 6 of the Post Office Act is attracted to the case not acceptable- Decision rendered in Union Bank of India V.Mohd. Nazim AIR 1980 SC 431 (SC) is not applicable and distinguishable due to distinguishable facts of the case- Appellant could not explain why article was not delivered, wherein it was lost and who was responsible for the loss-Impugned order validly passed and hence upheld- Appeal dismissed.” placed on record by the complainant.

11               Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and OPs are directed to make refund of the cost of the goods lying in the article i.e. Rs.20,043/- and postal charges of Rs.1034/-, which was paid by the complainant to OPs as postal charges and further Ops are directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

                   Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:30.03.2015 

Hardeep Singh