DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 57 of 2018

 

 

Sri Pradip Das,

S/O- Late Harendra Das,

Resident of Mahadev Tilla,

P.O.-Sonatala, P.S.-Khowai,

Dist.-Khowai Tripura, ..…..…...................................Complainant.

 

 

            -VERSUS-

 

The Superintendent of Post,

Agartala Divisional Office,

West Tripura, Agartala …..............................................Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Rajat Deb Choudhury,

  Advocate. 

 

For the O.P. : Smt. Nibedita Datta,

  Advocate. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 05/03/2019

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant Sri Pradip Das,  set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency in service committed by the O.P. Superintendent of Post, Agartala Divisional Office. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant had booked on payment of Postal charge Rs.4,236/- one parcel containing some medicines and dry food items by speed post on 09/08/2018 with the O.P. which was assured to be delivered on 12/08/2018 to his son who is prosecuting his studies  at Hyderbad. The Complainant has alleged that the parcel did not reach the destination and due to this his son had suffered severe health problems on account of non delivery of the medicines. His son also suffered a lot in his studies. The complainant had to purchase medicines afresh and send the same to his son by a messenger. The complainant further stated in his complaint that due to the deficiency of service of the O.P. his wife had also suffered mentally and she also became ill. The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint against the O.P. and prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- due to the deficiency of service committed by the O.P. 

  The O.P. has contested the case by filing a written statement denying the deficiency of service as alleged by the Complainant. The O.P. has asserted that the Postal Department was not aware about the contents of the parcel which was booked by the Complainant and that when the parcel was booked it was not insured. It is further stated by the O.P. that the parcel was delivered to the son of the complainant on 18/08/2018 and as such it took only six(06) days' time for delivery of the parcel to the Consignee i.e. the son of the Complainant. The O.P. by referring section 6 of Indian Post Office Act has asserted that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. According to the O.P. the service of the Postal Department can not be equated with a common carrier and that there is a provision for paying compensation equal to the composite Speed Post charges paid by the sender at the time of booking in case of delay of delivery of domestic Speed Post articles beyond the norms determine by the Indian Post Office Rules. 

The O.P. denying any deficiency of service having been committed by them towards the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

2. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

In support of the Complaint, the Complainant has Examined himself as PW-1 and produced 05 documents namely Postal receipt in connection with consignment No.EE477131706IN dated 09/08/2018, tracking report of Indian Post(downloaded Copy) dated 08/08/2018, Copy of tracking report under consignment No.EE416370000IN & Copy of the representation addressed to the  Superintendent of Post, Dharmanagar, North Tripura.  The documents are marked  Exhibit-I series. 

On behalf of the O.P. one witness namely Sri Khawlthanga Sailo, Superintendent of Post Offices, Agartala Divisional Office, Agartala has been examined. The said witness did not adduce any documentary evidence. 

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

3.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:  

(I). Whether  there was  delay in transmission of the parcel of the Complainant to his Son ? 

     (ii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

 

4. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  It is not in a dispute that the parcel which was booked with the O.P. could not be delivered to the addressee i.e. the son of the complainant at Hyderbad in time. The complainant had paid due charges to the O.P., the Service provider. As per the consignment memo under Exhibit-I series the parcel was booked on 09/08/2018 and it was to be delivered to the son of the complainant on 12/08/2018 provided there should not be a holiday between 09/08/2018 and 12/08/2018. We find that 12/08/2018 was holiday being Sunday, so the O.P. could have delivered the parcel to the consignee(the son of the Complainant Sri Pritam Das) on 13/08/2018 which was a working day. The O.P. in their written statement as well as evidence-in-chief(Oral evidence adduced by OPW) has admitted that the parcel was delivered to the consignee Sri Pritam Das on 18/08/2018. As per the all India Delivery (Transit) Norms for Speed Post normally 3 to 4 days are required for delivery of articles on transit from Agartala to Hyderbad (Source: www.india post.gov.in). This information(at Flag-A) has been submitted by Learned Advocate for the complainant during the arguments. We find that there was 05 days delay from the normal date of delivery of the parcel to the consignee. The O.P. in our opinion has failed to give plausible reasons for delayed delivery of the parcel to the son of the complainant.  

  The Postal Speed Post Service is expected to deliver articles speedily. People have much trust and faith on the Postal Speed Post Service for quick delivery of articles but the trust was shattered by the negligent act committed by the Postal Speed Post Service personnel in the case of the Complainant. The Postal Department can not avoid its responsibility for the negligence of their staffs/officials. This is deficiency of service by the Postal Department which had caused delay of 05 days time than the assured date of delivery of the parcel to the Consignee. The Complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service rendered by the O.P. The Complainant suffered mental harassment and anxiety for the delayed delivery of parcel. Moreover due to the delayed delivery of the parcel the food items which were sent through the parcel got damaged.  

  For all the fore going reasons, we find and hold that the Complainant has succeed in establishing that the O.P. was negligent and deficient in rendering  service to him. That beings so, he is entitled to get compensation. 

    The complainant did not adduce cash memo showing that he had incurred Rs.5,000/- for purchasing of the medicines which he had sent though the parcel. He also did not cite the messenger whom he sent to his son with medicines as witness in this case. Hence we are not inclined to entertain the plea of the complainant in those matters. 

 5. In the result, the Complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Complainant is allowed on contest. It is hereby directed the O.P. will pay Rs. 1,000/-for the Food items which had been damaged, Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for causing mental agony and harassment together with Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. The O.P. are to pay the aforesaid compensation of Rs.9,000/-(Rs.1,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.3,000/-) in total with a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made. 

 

ANNOUNCED

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.