Tripura

StateCommission

A/37/2018

The Post Master - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Suman Bapari - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Biswanath Majumdar

06 Apr 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.37.2018

 

 

1. The Post Master,

Chandlodia Post Office, 

Ahmadabad, Gujarat - 382481.

 

2. Superintendent,

Agartala Head Post Office,

Agartala, West Tripura

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

 

Vs

 

 

1. Sri Suman Bepari,

S/o Hare Krishna Bepari,

Shibnagar, Sadar,

P.O. Agartala College,

Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                              Mr. Biswanath Majumdar, Ld. CGC.

For the Respondent/Complainant:                    Miss Shima Acharjee, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:          06.04.2019.

 

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

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 20.09.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 31 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition and held that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as complainant), the respondent herein, is entitled to get Rs.47,300/- out of which Rs.22,300/- is the value of the parcel and Rs.15,000/- for deficiency of service as well as Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation. Payment is to be made within two months, if not paid; it will carry interest @9% per annum. Appellants have also filed one condonation petition for condoning the delay of 41 days in preferring the appeal against which, the respondent-complainant has filed objection.

After hearing the parties, we have allowed the prayer for condonation and the appeal is taken up for final disposal at this admission stage itself as agreed to by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Biswanath Majumdar, Ld. CGC appearing for the appellant-opposite parties as well as Miss Shima Acharjee, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant.
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant, Sri Suman Bepari filed one application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum wherein it is stated that on 10.04.2018 one parcel was sent to him by his brother-in-law Sri Saikat Das from Chandlodia Post Office of Ahmadabad, Gujarat to his address at Shibnagar, Agartala, but the article did not reach to him being the same was missing. A complaint was lodged to the Indian Postal Services, but no action was taken. The value of the parcel was Rs.22,300/-. In the complaint petition he had mentioned regarding the Consignment No.CG017252153IN and Complaint No.10008256465.

4. Upon receipt of the complaint petition, the learned District Forum issued notice upon the opposite parties i.e. the appellants herein. The opposite party no.2, Superintendent, Agartala Head Post Office appeared and filed his written statement. In the written statement it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer and the consumer is Saikat Das of Chandlodia. The services are to be provided from the Post Master, Chandlodia Post Office, Ahmadabad, Gujarat. So, the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala has no jurisdiction. The address of the complainant is in respect of ‘delivery services’ and according to the Superintendent of Agartala Head Post Office, no cause of action arose wholly or in part in the jurisdiction of Agartala Postal Division or Agartala Head Post Office. The insurance facility was available, but the parcel was not insured. Grievance Cell was also available, but the complainant failed to place his grievance in proper place. So, this claim is liable to be dismissed.
5. The opposite party no.1, Post Master, Chandlodia Post Office did not submit any written statement. Therefore, on the basis of contention raised by the parties, the learned District Forum framed the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether the court has jurisdiction and the petition is maintainable?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the lost parcel? 

6. Complainant produced the track report, letter issued by Senior Superintendent, Post Office, Gandhinagar Division. The complainant filed his examination-in-chief and he was also cross-examined by the opposite party no.2.
7. Opposite party no.2 though submitted its written statement, but did not adduce any evidence.
8. On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 neither filed the written statement nor adduced any evidence.
9. The learned District Forum considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment.
10. Mr. Majumdar, Ld. CGC while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint filed by the complainant as the registered parcel was sent from Gujarat and the same was allegedly missing not within the jurisdiction of the Agartala Post Office. He further submits that the registered parcel was not an insured one. More so, in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation for alleged deficiency of service so far the loss of his registered parcel is concerned. He has finally contended that if there is any grievance regarding the loss of parcel, then the said grievance is to be of the Saikat Das, not the complainant.
11. Miss Acharjee, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the complainant being the beneficiary of the parcel, he has the right to file the complaint petition and when admittedly, the parcel was not delivered, he is entitled to get the value of the parcel as well as the compensation for deficiency of service.
12. According to the learned District Forum, it is the admitted position that the Agartala College Post Office was the delivery point and the complainant was the beneficiary of the service to be given by the India Post. India Post has its Branch at Agartala and India Post is also available within the Agartala jurisdiction. From Chandlodia, Gujarat the parcel was sent, but it was not delivered as the opposite party-India Post providing services in Agartala and other parts of Tripura. So, the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala has the jurisdiction to entertain any complaint in respect of deficiency of service by India Post. Complainant is the beneficiary of the service and recipient of the parcel. Sender Sri Saikat Das is his brother-in-law and he paid the amount on behalf of the complainant-recipient of the parcel. Parcel belongs to the complainant and parcel charge was paid by his brother-in-law on behalf of him. It is the admitted position that the parcel was not delivered. From the track report, it was found that on 10.04.2018 parcel was dispatched from Ahmadabad, Gujarat, but it was lost between Guwahati Division and SG Division, Siliguri. Opposite party, Senior Superintendent, Gandhinagar Division by one letter admitted it and requested sender Saikat Das to fill up attached form for compensation. So, the opposite party was ready to give compensation. Opposite parties neither gave any evidence to disprove the allegation that the cost of the parcel was Rs.22,300/- nor denied the fact regarding the contention of the complainant so far the parcel sent by his brother-in-law. There is no doubt that the India Post has got some exemption facility for the liability for loss and damage as per Section '6' of the Indian Post Office Act.
13. We have gone through the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which states as under:-
    •  
14. In view of the above, we are of the view that the learned District Forum misdirected itself while passing the impugned judgment, though in its judgment, the learned District Forum referred to Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, but did not consider the same in its true aspects. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Post Office which is run by the Government shall not be liable for non-delivery of the postal articles either by ordinary or registered post, except the liability which may be expressed in terms undertaken by the Indian Government. The Indian Post Office Rules have been framed which has been amended vide GSR 734 (E) dated 01^st October, 2012 which reads as under:-
    1.  

Explanation: For the purposes of this rule “Inland Speed Post Service means the service which seeks to deliver postal articles within stipulated time, specified in respect of each city or town, as the case may be from time to time, by a special messenger or conveyance.

In case of delay in delivery of domestic speed post articles 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 or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid of Rs1,000 whichever is less.”

From the complaint, it is also not clear what was the article sent by the brother-in-law of the complainant from Chandlodia Post Office of Ahmadabad, Gujarat to Agartala. In absence of the name and nature of the article, it is very difficult on our part to come to the conclusion regarding the price of the parcel. Complainant has also not submitted any document in support of the price of the article except the postal receipt.

In view of the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and the rules thereunder, the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss of any postal article in course of transmission by post unless such loss caused due to fraudulent action or willful act or default of the Postal Authority. In the instant case, the complainant failed to prove that the article was lost due to fraudulent action or willful act of the Postal Authority. The liability of the Post Office is not contractual, but statutory. The Post Office is the department of the Central Government and it is not a common carrier.

Our aforesaid view is supported by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Post Master, Main Post Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) and another Vs Rajesh Nag S/o Puran Lal Nag, R/o Santoshi Ward, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) and another, W.P. (C) No.312 of 2015.

In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.