DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 91 of 2019

Smt. Moumita Roy,

D/O. Sri Uddipanta Narayan Roy,

Of North Banamalipur, Agartala,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001…..................................................................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Chief Postmaster,

Bhuj Head Post Office, Gujrat,

Bhuj, Bhuj, Kachchh, Gujrat,

Gujarat-370001.

 

2. The Chief Postmaster,

Ahmadabad Head Post Office,

Of Ahmadabad City,

Ahmadabad – 380001.

 

3. The Postmaster,

Agartala Head Post Office,

Agartala, Tripura(West),

Pin-799001.

 

4. The Proprietor,

Kutch Hastkala

Of Anam Ring Road, Nr. Rajlaxmi Furniture, Hhuj-Kutch,

Gujrat-370001......................................................................................... Opposite Parties.

 

       __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Debal Saha,

  Miss Leena Sarkar,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps.    : Sri Indrajit Biswas,

  Advocate. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :   24/ 09 /2021.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant, Smt. Moumita Roy, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining deficiency of service against the O.P. Nos.1,2 & 3. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant is a owner of one garment shop named “Mayur Boutique” situated at New Bodhjung Road, North Banamalipur, Agartala. The Complainant booked some articles i.e. 10 nos. of Klutchi work dress material amounting to Rs.3,500/- along with shipping charge of Rs.150/- i.e. in total Rs.3,650/- from the O.P. No.4 on 19/06/2019. Then the O.P. No.4 sent the above articles in favour of the Complainant's address through registered post on 19/06/2019 but the articles was not handed over to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant made contact with the O.P. No.3 regarding the non delivery of the booked articles, then the O.P. No.3 replied that articles had already been sent by the O.P. No.4 in favour of the Complainant though registered post. The O.P. No.4 sent the copy of postal receipt vide No.CG319583978IN dated 19/06/2019.  Thereafter, the Complainant went to the Agartala Head Post Office and from there she confirmed that the said article was not reached Agartala Head Post Office and also on advise of the Agartala Post Office on 10/07/2019 the Complainant made a complaint to the Postal Department for non-delivery article in c/w the consignment number-CG319583978IN dated 19/06/2019 through online and accordingly the said complaint was registered as public complaint vide complaint number-10009389358 dated 10/07/2019. The Superintendent of RMS Division of Postal Department informed that the said non-delivery of article is still not traceable and the case may be closed by treating the item to be lost. The allegation of the Complainant is that of deficiency of service caused by the O.P. Nos.1 & 2. So, the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from the O.Ps. 

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.P. Nos.1,2 &3,  the Complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.53,650/- which comprises the value of the articles booked for her as Rs.3,650/-, Rs.20,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony, Rs.20,000/- for deficiency of service and  Rs.10,000/- litigation costs from the O.P. Nos.1,2 & 3.    

Hence, this case. 

 

2. On the other hand O.Ps. contested the case by filling written statements. In their written statements, they challenged the maintainability of the proceeding. The O.Ps. at Para-3 of written statement stated that it is true that consignment No. CG319583978IN was booked with the O.Ps. by one Smt. Moumita Roy on 19/06/2019. The Superintendent of RMS Division of postal Department informed to the Complainant regarding the non-delivery of article as not traceable and case may be closed by treating the item to the lost.  In their written statement at Para-4 it is stated that there is an exemption clause, which states that no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or default. 

          Ultimately, the O.Ps. made a prayer to dismiss the complaint as there is no cause of action and it is not maintainable in law.                                                       

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant has examined herself as PW-I and she has submitted her examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 7 documents comprising 9 sheets under a Firisti dated 07/11/2019. The documents are namely Xerox copy of Tax Invoice dated 19/06/2019, Xerox copy of Postal receipt dated 19/06/2019, Xerox copy of Track Consignment status, Xerox copy of registration of complaint dated 19/06/2019, Xerox copy of Grievance details. Centralized Public Grievance redress and Monitoring system, Xerox copy Track Complaint status & Xerox copy of Certificate of Trade License. On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.Ps'. side. 

    On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Pradip Majumdar, S/O. Lt. Birendra Majumdar, Superintendent of Post Office at Agartala, Postal Division Office, Post Office Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura was examined. The said witness was not cross examined by the Complainant side as it is a summary trial. 

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:

       (i). Whether the complaint is maintainable in law?           

    (ii). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

    (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES 

           We heard argument from both sides. 

          Learned Advocate Mr. Debal Saha appearing for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant use to purchase various cloths from the O.P. No.4 through online and accordingly a good relation created between the Complainant and O.P. No.4. Lastly on 19/06/2019 the Complainant booked some materials amounting to Rs.3,500/- from the O.P. No.4 and the Complainant also made a payment of shipping charges of Rs.150/- for the said purpose. Thereafter, O.P. No.4 sent the articles in favour of the Complainant through registered post but the articles were not received by the Complainant. The Complainant enquired the matter from the Agartala Head Post Office and she was informed that the article is not traceable and it is lost. For that complainant suffered a lot and she filed the complaint for getting monetary loss as well as compensation. Mr. Saha further submitted that the Complainant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.53,650/- on various counts. Mr. Saha relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in connection with CC-67 of 2019 and also judgment passed by the Hon'ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in connection with A/8/2020 and another judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.2207 of 2017 dated 05/04/2018. 

                On the other hand Learned Advocate Mr. Indrajit Biswas appearing for the O.P. Nos.1,2 & 3 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable under Indian Post Office Act, 1898. He submitted that in the instant case the Complainant is not consumer as she has not availed the service of India Post by paying the charges of sending the goods with insurance coverage. He further submitted that as per provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 there is a limited liability. So, complaint is not tenable in law Under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and Rule 66(B) of the Indian Post Office Rule 1933. Mr. Biswas further submitted that the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana in a recent decision in case No.200 of 2018 decided on 26/02/2021 in a similar situation rejected the complaint  relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(Union of India & Others Vs. R.C. Puri 2007(2)CPJ-49.) Mr. Biswas relying upon the judgment further submitted that the instant complaint is also liable to be dismissed.                           

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

          For the sake of convenience all points are taken up together for the decision. 

           We have gone through the complaint as well as written statement of both sides. We have also meticulously gone through the evidences of both sides. There is no dispute in respect of booking of articles at Bhuj Post Office through registered post by the O.P. No.4 and non-delivery of the registered parcel to the Complainant. In the examination-in-chief on affidavit submitted by the Complainant, she stated that after getting the postal receipt and the tracking consignment No.CG319583978IN she found that the article was duly booked from the Bhuj sorting counter on 19/06/2019 at 17:32:09 A.M. but the article was not handed over to her in her address.  

              On the other hand OPW-I, Sri Pradip Majumdar stated that he is holding the Post of Superintendent of Post Offices Agartala Postal Division and he is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the complaint and he is competent to swear this affidavit on behalf of the O.Ps. In his examination-in-chief he stated that as per provision of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the Post Office is not liable to compensate for the loss of article, unless the loss is caused by some fraudulently or by  willful act or default by any staff of Postal Department. OPW-1 at Para-6 stated that there is no negligence on the part of the answering party and no deficiency in service, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is not maintainable in law. 

          We have perused the citations referred by both the parties as well as judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission and the Tripura State Commission.              

            Now, we shall discuss whether the complaint is maintainable in the eye of law. We have gone through the decision of the Post Master, Imphal & Others Vs. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband passed in Revision Petition No.986 of 1996 of NCDRC. This decision is a land mark decision. In that case the Complainant claimed damages against Postal Department for delayed delivery of postal packets and District Consumer Forum awarded compensation and in Appeal  the State Commission partly upheld the decision of the District Commission and thereafter the matter reached to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The judgment was given by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suhas C. Sen, President & Four(04) other Members. In that judgment, it was held that the law is well settled by a long line of decisions of the English Courts, the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts as well as the National Commission itself, “that Section 6 gives complete immunity to the Government and its employees except in the case specified therein. We see no reason to depart from this well established principle”. Ultimately, the judgment of the State Commission was set aside and complaint was dismissed by that decision. 

  The Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura, Agartala in case No.A/37 of 2018(Post Master Vs. Sri Suman Bepari) decided that “in view of the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and the rules thereunder, the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss of any postal article in course of transmission by post unless such loss caused due to fraudulent action or willful act or default of the Postal Authority”. 

        It is further decided that “the liability of Post Office is not contractual, but statutory. The Post Office is the department of the Central Government and it is not a common carrier”. 

 

7.        In the instant case, the Complainant failed to prove that the article was lost due to fraudulent action or willful act of the Postal Authority. Considering the settled principle of law we are in the opinion that the decision mentioned above are squarely applicable in the instant case. So, we are in the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable in law. 

          Hence, the complaint petition is dismissed & no costs.                          

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties  free of cost. 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.