IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/116/2018.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:          Date of Disposal:

     05.07.18                                      12.07.18                              18.02.2020

Complainant: MOHAIMINA KUSUM

D/O Late Moidul Islam,

Vill.Ramnagar Para, P.O.Raninagar,

 Dist.Murshidabad,

Pin 742308.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.SUPERINTENDENT OF POST, MURSHIDABAD DIVISION 

Berhampore Head Post Office,

P.O. And P.S.Berhampore,

Dist. Murshidabad,

Pin 742101.

    2. Senior Superintendent

Kolkata Airport Sorting Division,

Kolkata-28

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Sri. Pranab Kumar Das.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1&2        : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

  Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.

            One Mohaimina Kusum (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Superintendent of Post, Murshidabad Division and Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

   The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            On 12.06.17 the Complainant sent an application for nursing training at Ramkrishna Sarada Mission Matri Bhavan through speed post from OP No.1 and last date for receipt of application was 17.06.2017. But the Complainant did not receive the Admit Card for the entrance examination for nursing training in the above institution. On enquiry she came to know that item was sent from Kolkata to Andaman and then from there to the above mentioned Nursing School and as the last date was over the said articles was returned back to the Complainant at the end of June’17. For this act of negligence on the part of the OPs, the Complainant suffered an irreparable loss and she filed complaint before the Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice but all went in vain. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.

            After service of notice the OPs appeared before this Forum contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The OP No.1 in the written version stated that the Complainant booked an article at Raninagar S.O. on 12.06.2017 addressed to Kolkata-700026 vide article No. EW797499285IN. On enquiry it is found from web tracking report it is clear that the Speed post article No. EW797499285IN was send by Raninagar sub-post office to Berhampore RMS on the very day of booking and ICH Berhampore RMS received the article on 13.06.2017 and on that very day the Berhampore RMS send the article to NSH Kolkata Air Port and on 15.06.2017 the article received by NSH Kolkata Air Port. So, there was no delay in action on the part of this Opp. Party regarding the dispatch of the said SPA and if there is any delay then also the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act.

            The OP No.2 in the written version stated that article received by NSH Kolkata Air Port was sorted through automatic mail sorting machine at automated mail processing centre Kolkata. But it was mis-sent to port Blair due to technical fault of the machine. After that the SPA was received from Port Blair to NSH Kolkata and it was correctly dispatched to Tollyganj H.O. (Nodal delivery office of Kolkata 26) by this Opp Party manually under bag No. EBW0019527662 on 22.06.2017. Finally the SPA was returned to ICH Berhampore on 29.06.2017 under Bag No. EBW001932062. So, the delay of the article was only for technical reason which beyond the control of human being and as such this Opp party should not be liable for mis-sorting of the article to Port Blair and as per section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the case is liable to be dismissed.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reason

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OPs for consideration.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Admittedly, the Complainant sent an article through speed post from OP No.1 to the Ramkrishna Sarada Mission Matri Bhavan  on 12.06.17 but the said article was not delivered in time and the same was returned back to the Complainant in the last part of June, 2017 and for this reason the Complainant was unable to appear for entrance examination for nursing training in the said school.

                The OP No.1 in the written version stated that the Complainant booked an article at Raninagar S.O. on 12.06.2017 addressed to Kolkata-700026 vide article No. EW797499285IN. On enquiry it is found from web tracking report it is clear that the Speed post article No. EW797499285IN was send by Raninagar sub-post office to Berhampore RMS on the very day of booking and ICH Berhampore RMS received the article on 13.06.2017 and on that very day the Berhampore RMS send the article to NSH Kolkata Air Port and on 15.06.2017 the article received by NSH Kolkata Air Port. So, there was no delay in action on the part of this Opp. Party regarding the dispatch of the said SPA and if there is any delay then also the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act.

               The OP No.2 in the written version stated that article received by NSH Kolkata Air Port was sorted through automatic mail sorting machine at automated mail processing centre Kolkata. But it was mis-sent to port Blair due to technical fault of the machine. After that the SPA was received from Port Blair to NSH Kolkata and it was correctly dispatched to Tollyganj H.O. (Nodal delivery office of Kolkata 26) by this Opp Party manually under bag No. EBW0019527662 on 22.06.2017. Finally the SPA was returned to ICH Berhampore on 29.06.2017 under Bag No. EBW001932062. So, the delay of the article was only for technical reason which beyond the control of human being and as such this Opp party should not be liable for mis-sorting of the article to Port Blair and as per section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the case is liable to be dismissed.

Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties Postal Department  has stated that as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 liability cannot be fastened on the Postal Department, Government of India for misplacement or late delivery of a postal article section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as under

‘’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 willful act of default.’’

            From the above, it is clear that this section will not give immunity to the department or the employee if an employee found delinquent in his duty if an enquiry is done. Whereas in the present case department has not done any enquiry.

            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 misdelivered 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.

            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, 1986 and 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.

            Thus, we hold that not delivering the speed post article to the address in due time clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2. As because a letter cannot move on its own, obviously behind the movement of articles through Post Office there is some responsible person and that person must be cautions and careful.

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents filed before us and argument advanced by both parties, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 as because the OP No.1 sent the consignment on the very day of booking to Berhampore RMS and sent the article to NSH Kolkata Air Port (OP No.2) and on 15.06.17, the article was received by NSH Kolkata Air Port and the OP No.2 after sorting the article mis-sent it to Port Blair though the correct address was Tollyganj H.O. (Nodal delivery office of Kolkata-26). So, there is deficiency of services on the part of the OP No.2.

            We think that the Complainant should get Speed Post charge of Rs. 40/-along with compensation of  Rs.1,000/- for mental pain and agony.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 05.07.18 and admitted on 12.07.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.

             Fees paid are correct.

             In the result, the Complaint Case succeeds.

            Hence, it is

                                                         ORDERED

that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/116/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.2 without cost and dismissed against the OP No.1 without cost.

              The OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.40/- to the Complainant. The OP No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant for mental pain and agony.

             All the aforesaid orders must be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

    Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          Member

  Member                                                                                                    President.