| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR. Complaint No.269 of 2017 Date of Instt.04.08.2017 Date of Decision:09.03.2021 Smt. Suman Sandal wife of Sh. RoshanLal Proprietor of M/s Chand Shuttlecock House, WX-24, BastiNau, Jalandhar. ..........Complainant Versus 1. Superintendent of Post Office, GPO, Jalandhar. 2. Chief Post Master General, Sandesh Bhawan, Chandigarh. 3. The Director General Post, Parliament Street, New Delhi. ….….. Opposite Parties Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act. Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President) Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Present: Sh. PPS Ahluwalia, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant. Sh.Hukum Chand, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3. Order Kuljit Singh (President) The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged thathe is a proprietorship concern deals in manufacturing, trading and supply of sports goods having its office at WX-24 Basti Nau, Jalandhar and he dispatched two parcels vide registered post from Jalandhar to Dergaon (Assam) vide registered post No.CP1225533004IN dated 12.11.2016 through Post Office, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar and vide registered post No.CP162018450 IN dated 01.11.2016 through Post Office, Basti Nau, Jalandhar. The above parcels were containing badminton rackets favouring M/s Khetan Sports, Dergaon (Assam) vide invoice No.2588 dated 31.10.2016 for a sum of Rs.6452/- and vide invoice No.2599 dated 10.11.2016 for a sum of RS.8282/-. That the above consignment/goods never reached the place of destination and accordingly, the complainant requested the postal authorities to trace out the said goods and redress the grievance of the complainant but no response has been received so far. That the complainant lodged online complaint, vide registration No.DPG/P/2016/80985 dated 28.12.2016 to Directorate of Public Grievances, but no satisfactory reply/relief was received by the complainant in lieu of the above complaint. Despite various requests and reminders, the complainant had not received any satisfactory response from the postal authority. That earlier complainant served a notice dated 29.11.2016 to the OPs but the OPs at their office at Basti Guzan Jalandhar, but the OPs have failed to give any response and further the complainant served a legal notice dated 22.03.2017 and then the OPs gave a false and frivolous reply. The OPs further intimated vide letter dated 23.03.2017 to the complainant that the said parcel has not been forthcoming from the work papers of WB Division, Howrah and advised the complainant to apply for the compensation within 15 days from the receipt of their letter. But the OPs vide memo No.CR/CC/144002-00181 dated at Jalandhar the 18.04.2017 offered to pay a sum of Rs.100/- in terms of compensation, which is altogether not acceptable to the complainant. That due to the non-cooperative, arbitrary and dictatorial attitude of the OPs, the complainant was left with no alternative except to file the present complaint with the prayer that the OPs be directed to pay/refund the amount of Rs.14,734/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and damages to the tune of Rs.25,000/- alonwith costs, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs appeared through its counsel and filed joint reply, wherebycontested the complaint by taking plea, whereby the OPs admitted that the complainant dispatched two parcels vide registered post from Jalandhar to Dergaon (Assam) and further admitted para No.3 of the complaint to the extent that Parcel No.CPI22533004IN booked on 12.11.2016 was dispatched to its destination point on the very same day by Basti Guzan Post Office and further admitted Para No.5 of the complaint that the complainant has given a complaint at Basti Guzan Post Office on 29.11.2016 regarding non delivery of parcel No.CPI22533004IN dated 12.11.2016, in response to the complaint, a web complaint No.144002-181 was lodged on 30.11.2016 which was updated by WB Division Howrah with the reply the disposal of the parcel is not forthcoming from the work papers of WB Division, Howrah. Thereafter, the complainant has served a legal notice dated 22.03.2017. It is admitted that complainant was sanctioned Rs.100/- in lieu of lost parcel No.CP122533004IN vide memo No.CR/CCC/144002-00181 dated 18.04.2017. It is intimated that the amount of compensation has been paid according to post office rules. As per Indian Post Office Act 1898 Sec 6 ‘exemption from liability for loss, mis delivery, delay or damage the Government shall not incur any liability by reason or loss, mis delivery or delay of or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission post in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by 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 is willful act or default. There is no deficiency on the part of post office as both the parcels were dispatched to its destination point on very same day. Further, the disposal of parcel dated 12.11.2016, has been provided to the complainant and as per rules, compensation has been sanctioned to complainant. Other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith document Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and then closed the evidence. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very carefully. During arguments the contentions of learned counsel for complainant are similar to the pleadings, so no need to reiterate the same. Counsel for complainant argued that main grievance of complainant is against OPsarticles in dispute not delivered. Fact qua sending of articles/products for the destination by the complainant is admitted. It is also no disputed that the articles/products sent by registered parcel/post but the same not reached the destination. Grievance of the complainant is that due to non-delivery of article, the complainant has suffered loss. During arguments, learned counsel for Ops relied upon Section 6 of the Indian Post Act, 1898 under which exemption from liability for the loss, mis-delivery or delay of or damage has been given to OPs. He has placed reliance on judgment reported as 2001 (3) CLT page 229 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Banglore titled as Chief Post Master General, GPO and others VsNirmalaHanmanthRaoKhasnis. But in that case no fraud or willful act default had been alleged against any officer of the Post Office. Hence, the complainant was held suffering a disability under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. Learned counsel for OPs also quoted another judgment of 2008 (4) CPJ 123 “Senior Superintendent Post and Telegraph Department Circle At Solan, HP Vs ML Gupta and Anr; 2015 (4) CPJ 329 Post Master General V. dipak Banerjee (NCDRC) New Delhi); 2017 (4) CPJ 137 Post Office V Akhilesh Grover, 9NDCRC) New Delhi; 2018 (4) CPJ 425, Post Office Hisar V Dilwan Singh (NCDRC) New Delhi). Wherein, it was observed that the relationship between the sender of postal article and the Post Office is governed by the Indian Post Office Act and not by law of contract or tort. There is no liability at all for loss or non-delivery of a postal article except in so far as specifically provided by the statute under Section 33 and Section 6 or any other regulation or rule. Hon’ble National Commission reported as 2007 (2) CLT page 50 titled as Union of India and another Vs State Bank of India and others, wherein it has been held that no allegations of willful negligence in the complaint – Petitioner cannot be held liable for any loss/non delivery in view of the provision of Section 6 of the 1898 Act. We do not find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposites parties because facts of the case in hand are totally different from the above mentioned cases. It is admitted fact by the OPs that the said article not delivered and the Ops have paid compensation of Rs.100/- due to non-delivery of said article. In the enquiry report itself, it is mentioned that some lapses were found in the part of West Bengal Post Office. Hence, it is fully proved that there is some negligence and deficiency on the part of officials of OPs which has resulted in non-delivery of the article booked by the complainant. Hence, all this has caused mental tension and agony to the complainant causing her to financial loss in future. Certainly the latest judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab passed in FA No.803/2013 FA No.811/2013 titled as Post Office etc. Vs. Akhilesh Grover decided on 11.12.2015 and same was upheld by Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 06.10.2017 passed in RP No.1278 of 2016 and RP No.1279 of 2016 is to be followed.
12. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against OPs and they are directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,734/- alongwith interest @ 5% Per Annum from the date of filing of present complaint till realization. Further, 2000/- as compensation to the complainant. This amount shall be paid by the OPs to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties, as permissible, under the rules and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced in open Commission 9th of March 2021 Kuljit Singh (President) Jyotsna (Member) | |
