Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

           Ld. Advocates for both parties are present.

           Heard the Ld. Advocates for both sides. Considered.

      Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order dated 30.11.2018, Passed by Ld. DCDRF, Hooghly at Chinsurah allowing CC/54/2017, the Appellant/Complainant prefers this appeal.

           In the impugned judgement the Ld. Forum below observed,

         “Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.54/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.3 & 5 with a litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- payable to this complainant.

         The Opposite Party No.3 & 5 are directed o pay jointly and/or severally a sum of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to this complainant within 45 days from the date of final order.

           The OP No.1, 2, 4 & 6 are exonerated from this proceeding.

         At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party no.3 & 5 shall pay fine @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if  caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

         Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement / sent by ordinary Post for information and necessary action.”

           The fact of the Complaint Case was in short like that the Complainant booked a parcel for him before the OP no.6 on 07.01.2017 at 15.47 hours bearing Article No. E.O. 0856699659 in 466 grams and the charge of parcel was Rs.104/-. On perusal of track report, it was shown that he received the parcel on a belated stage i.e. on 18.01.2017. According to the Complainant, the OP/Department harassed the Complainant by causing delay about 13 days. The Complainant mailed the higher authority on 12.01.2017 and 18.01.2017. But the Complainant did not receive the same within the stipulated period. So, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint Case praying for refund of Rs.Two Lakhs alleging that the Opposite Party did not refund the amount and they failed to render service causing deficiency in service. In the written version the OP No.3/Respondent No.3 stated that the aforesaid article was booked at Berhampur (GM) H.O. on 07.01.2017 and tariff was charged for said article. The bag containing the said SPA was received by MA, Howrah RMS/3B, on 08.01.2017 and the same bag was dispatched to the Calcutta Airport sorting division on the same date. The SPA was sent to Mallickpara SO, as missent by N.S.H, Kolkata Airport on 10.01.2017 and finally the SPA, in question, was received by ICH, Howrah on 12.01.2017 and returned to N.S.H, Kolkata Airport on 13.01.2017. The NSH, Kolkata Airport returned the article to ICH, Howrah on 16.01.2017 and ICH, Howrah bagged the SPA in question for Prabhash Nagar SO on 17.01.2017 and the SPA was delivered from Prabhas Nagar SO on 18.01.2017. 

          The OP No.6 of the Consumer Complaint Case also contested the case. According to them, on the same day i.e on 07.01.2017 the article was dispatched for onward transmission to NSH, Berhampur. On that day, the said article was received by NSH, Berhampur and on the same day, i.e on 7.1.17 it was bagged to NSH, Kolkata Airport vide a specific bag no.

           The parties adduced evidence on behalf of the forum below.

          The Ld. Forum below decided that the Complainant was a consumer and there was deficiency in service on behalf of the Opposite Parties. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties of the Consumer Complaint Case submitted that they also preferred an appeal, against the same-self judgement, being A/524/2019, which was disposed of dismissing the appeal. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded by this Forum Below.

         The Ld. Advocate for the respondent referred to section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 regarding exemption from liability for loss, miss-delivery and delay etc. of the Postal Authority and section 66B of the aforesaid Act. It was mentioned therein that the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charges paid.

          The fact remains that, the Opposite Party of the Consumer Complaint Case preferred another appal being No.A/524/2019, which we have discussed earlier.  But in the aforesaid judgement passed by this Forum affirmed the aforesaid order passed by the Forum Below.

        So, at this juncture, it shall not be proper for us to rely upon the argument of the respondent because it might result conflict of decisions in two appeals, which is not at all desirable.

         However, in the light of the observation made by us in the foregoing paragraphs, we did not find any illegality in the impugned order and we find that the compensation awarded by the Forum Below is adequate.

           So, the Appeal being No. A/276/2019 praying for enhancement of compensation cannot be entertained in the eyes of Laws.

          Accordingly, the Appeal being No.A/276/2019 is dismissed on contest. Impugned order is upheld. There shall be no order as to the costs.

           Order of stay, if there is any, in connection with the appeal stands vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Forum below.