Basanta Kumar Pradhan, C/o-Divisional Manager, Odisha Forest development Co-operation Ltd. filed a consumer case on 21 Jan 2015 against Supertendent of Post Office, Sambalpur Division in the Debagarh Consumer Court. The case no is Cc/24/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Apr 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DEOGARH
Shri P.K. Dash, President ,Smt. Arati Das, Member and Shri P. C. Mahapatra, Member
C/O – Divisional Manager,
Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd.
At – Near Dharanidhar U.P.School,
P.O. – Purunagarh,
Dist.- Deogarh, Odisha. … Complainant.
Sambalpur Division,
At/PO/Dist. – Sambalpur,
Odisha - 768001
Head Post Office, Deogarh,
At/PO/Dist – Deogarh,
Odisha - 768108
Sambalpur Circle,Sambalpur,
At/PO/Dist. – Sambalpur,
Odisha – 768001. … Opposite Parties
CC Case No.18/2014
Date of Hearing : 19.12.2014 , Decided on 21.01.2015
Counsel for the parties :
For the Complainant : Nemo
For the Opposite Parties : Nemo
O R D E R
SHRI PRABHAT KANT DASH,PRESIDENT; – Complaint was filed alleging that the registered Parcel sent was not delivered to addressee and was returned to him torn, contents stolen by Post Office causing thereby financial loss, mental agony.
Succinstinctly facts of the case as contended by the complainant in his complaint petition are that he, sent a registered parcel to his daughter Pallavi Pradhan, SRM University, SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur – 603203 vide Registration Receipt No. CO025040685IN on 08.03.2014.(ExbtC-1) The said Parcel was not delivered to addressee until 30.03.2014 when one Post Peon of Purunagarh Post Office came to him to deliver the said parcel being torn, damaged and emptied containing no contents. Complainant refused to receive the said parcel endorsing condition of the parcel purported to be returned by the Post Office on the acknowledgement Receipt (ExbtC-2) and brought the matter to the notice of the OP1 through OP2 on 04.04.2014 (ExbtC-3) claiming value of the contents to be Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousands). It has been stated by the complainant to have made correspondences with OPs at various occasion (ExbtC-4 to 5) and ultimately OP1 sent one application Form (ExbtC-6) for claiming the compensation for the loss after submission of which through registered post (ExbtC-7) OP1 passed an order for payment of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) towards the lost content of the said parcel vide letter No.L-6/2014 dated 02.07.2014 (Exbt-8). Complainant has relied upon the following documents :
a) Copy of Receipt of Regd.Parcel bearing No.ACO025040685IN (ExbtC-1)
b) Copy of Acknowledgement Receipt in token of receipt of Returned Parcel of 31.03.2014. (ExbtC-2)
c) Copy of the application made to Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur on 04.04.2014.(ExbtC-3)
d) Copy of reminder to application of 04.04.2014 on 22.04.2014. (ExbtC-4)
e) Copy of Complaint Acknowledgement by Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur Division. (ExbtC-5)
f) Copy of letter of Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur with reference to reminder letter of 22.04.2014. (ExbtC-6)
g) Copy of the letter submitting filled in Claim Form with receipt of registration bearing no. RO489774019IN/Dt.24.06.2014. (ExbtC-7)
h) Copy of Memo No.-L-6/2014 Dtd.02.07.2014 (ExbtC-8)
i) Copy of the letter communicated to Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur expressing dissatisfaction at the award of Rs.100/-.(ExbtC-9)
OP1, on behalf of OP2 & OP3 here in after referred as OPs has shewith in his written version to have disputed and denied all averments made by the complainant except the fact of booking of a registered parcel bearing No.CO025040685IN at Deogarh Mukhya Dak Ghar on 08.03.2014 addressed to Pallavi Pradhan, SRM University, SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur – 603203. Postmaster, Deogarh Mukhya Dak Ghar duly entering the said article in Parcel List at Serial No.2/2 sent to Sambalpur RMS through bag No.RBO0002244587 on 08.03.2014 for further dispatch and the said article being damaged during transit was returned to the sender on 31.03.2014. Sender Shri Basanta Kumar Pradhan refused to receive the said article.
Further OPs have contended that the department i.e. Postal department is least concerned with content inside the article(Parcel) as it was not insured. Consequent upon receipt of complaint dated 04.04.2014 from the complainant it was registered in Sambalpur Divisional Office Customer Care Centre vide complaint No.768100-04730 on 18.04.2014 and intimation to the effect was served to the complainant on 23.04.2014.
Admitting averments made by complainant in para-9 and para-10 of the complaint petition, OPs have stated that the case was inquired into and it was revealed that the said article was torn and damaged during transit i.e. before delivering to the addressee, in the context of which, attention of Forum has been drawn to provisions of the rules that in case of Parcels, or its contents or for any damage caused to it in course of transmission by post, compensation will be paid up to the limit of Rs.100/- and as such complainant was requested to prefer claim for compensation towards loss of contents vide letter No.L6/2014 dated 04.06.2014 there in enclosing the form for claim of compensation. Thereafter, according to rule an amount of Rs.100/-(Rupees one hundred) was sanctioned by OP1 as compensation which the complainant refused to receive.
OPs have further contended that as per Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the department is exempted from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post.
Lastly, OPs have submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought for in his complaint petition due to facts as above.
They have relied upon documents as follows:
On perusal of documents presented before us and submissions made at the time of hearing on 19.12.2014 we find that a registered parcel was booked by the complainant to Pallavi Pradhan to be delivered at SRM Nagar bearing no. CO025040685IN on 08.03.2014. It was not delivered to the addressee and was returned to the sender in torn and damaged condition on 31.03.2014. OPs have very wittily avoided value of the contents contained in the parcel taking shelter of the fact of not being Insured. It has been admitted by the OPs that the postal article i.e. the registered parcel was torn and damaged during transmission but have failed to defend complainants allegation of the parcel returned being empty. Also it is not established that such torn and damaged condition of the article was unintentional and not due to any act malafide during its course of transmission from within its source to destination. Also, complainant has failed to establish the value of contents of the impunged parcel to be Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand). As according to provisions of rule 170(Compensation) of Post Office Guide, Part-1 an amount of Rs.100/- was sanctioned by OP1 being the competent authority to do so in favour of the complainant which he refused to receive.
We refer to the case of Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, NIT, Faridabad & Anr. Vrs. Shri Mahabir Prasad and Anr [2013(3) CPR 166(NC)] where in Hon’ble National Commission have observed as under in relation to Section – 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 :
“10. However, the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of 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 or default.”
It may further be stated here that Section - 6 of the Indian Post Office Act of 1898 does not contain an absolute exemption. The Hon'ble National Commission in a case of Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. Upuovokta Suraksha Parishad, 1997 (1) CPR 11 NC has observed as under-
From findings as above we believe that it shall be prejudiced if Complainants claim for compensation towards the loss of contents of the Parcel, mental agony are turned down. Accordingly, I pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed. The OP1,OP2 and OP3 are severally and jointly are directed pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) towards compensation for financial loss sustained, Rs.1,000/ (Rupees one thousand) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) towards litigation cost within 45 days of receipt of this order failing which OP in addition to the amounts as above shall have to pay interest @ 9% on it till the date, the amount is actually paid.
Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 21st day of January, 2015 under my hand and seal of this forum.
I agree, I agree,
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected by me.
PRESIDENT.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.