DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                       C.C NO.25 OF 2016

Present:   Sri Rabindranath Mishra       - President.

                  Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.

                 Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy     - Member.

Sri Umma Charan Mishra, aged -36 years

S/O: Sribachha Mishra Vill/Po: Peonpada (Santi Nagar) Phulbani

PO/PS: Phulbani Town. Dist: kandhamal                                           ……………………….. Complainant.

                          Versus .

1.Superintendent of post

At/PO: Main Road, Phulbani

PS: Phulbani Town, Dist: Kandhamal.  

2.Chief Post Master General

At/PO: Bhubaneswar Dist: Khurdha

3.Post Master General

At/Po: Berhampur Dist: Ganjam.                                             ……………………………..  OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Sri G.N. Padhi, Advocate and his Associates

For the OPP. Parties: Self.

Date of Order: 21-01-2017

                                                                                                  O R D E R

                                                The case of the Complainant in brief is that he purchased a Tablet through NAPTOL On Line Shopping but due to breakage of the Product, he returned the product to the company by Registered Parcel through O.P No.1 vide Parcel No. 18215449 on 19-04-2016 but the same has not been reached to the addressee. The Complainant visited the office of O.P No.1 time and again to ascertain the reason of delay but the O.P always assured for early intimation but in vain. After waiting about two months, the Complainant intimated his grievances to O.P No.2 and 3 by registered post but no reply was received by him from the O.Ps. Thereafter he lodged a complaint before the DDG P.G New Delhi. As the product is valuable and most important for his study he suffered financial loss and mental agony and also deprived to get his study due to negligence of the O.Ps.So, this

                                                                                                       -2-

complaint was filed by him with a claim of Rs. 13,000 towards purchase price of the product along with Rs. 5,000/- for compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation cost from the O.Ps as they committed deficiency in service on their part.

                                                  The case of the O.Ps as per their version is that the product was returned through Phulbani H.O vide receipt No. C0018215449IN dtd.19-04-2016 addressed to M/S Naptol Online Shopping, Telengana Mandal ,Medchal. It is not concerned of the Department what the said parcel was containing. As per tracking report as on 01-06-2016, the article bagged for PH Hyderabad from PH Berhampur on 20-04-2016. Further as per Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad, the said article has been sent through bag no.CB00002278300 at sL no. 1/6 received by PH/2 Hyderabad (Annual set) on 21-04-2016. But further disposal of said article could not be traced out. Enquiry is in progress to fix up the responsibility on the official at fault. Since the complaint was booked in Web bearing web complaint no. 762001-00021, reminders have been issued to BG Division Berhampur, Hyderabad sorting Division for tracing out the whereabouts of the said article.

                                                   It is humbly submitted that no loss and damage has been caused to the Complainant by willful negligent act of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has been informed regarding loss of the article in transit and he has been requested to submit claim application for compensation as admissible under Rule. As per section -6 of the Indian post Office Act if damage is cause fraudulently or by willful act or default of the Government shall incur the liability of cost, misdelivery or delay in delivery of the postal article, as reflected in the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission ,New Delhi in revision Petition No. 4567 of 2012. Thus the Department is not liable for loss of the article sent by the Complainant.

                                                During course of hearing, the Complainant has filed an affidavit in support of his case. We have gone through the complaint petition, joint version of the O.ps and the documents filed by both parties in support of their case. We have perused the affidavit filed by the Complainant and the copies of judgment vide Revision petition no.4567 of 2012 passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi .In this context , the provision of Section 6 of the Indian post office Act, 1898 may be reproduced below :-Section -6- Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage-

                                               “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 in sofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the central Government as here-in 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”

                                                                                                          -3-                                       

                                              In the present case, there is no evidence that the loss of the Complainant     was caused fraudulently or by postman’s willful act or default. So, the complaint stands dismissed being devoid of merit. But the Complainant is entitled to get compensation admissible under Rule as pointed out by the Opp. Parties in their version.

                                                The C.C is disposed-of accordingly. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.

         MEMBER                                                                   MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT