DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA
Consumer Complaint No. 165 of 09/05/2019
Decided on: 19/12/2019
Roop Singh S/o Surjan Singh R/o H. No.707, Street No.7, Adarsh Colony, Bhadson Chungi, Patiala.
...Complainant
Versus
1. The Director Delhi Foreign Postal Services New Delhi.
2. Assistant Director, Office of Chief Post Master General, Delhi.
3. Senior Superintendent, Head Post Office, Patiala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member
ARGUED BY
Complainant in person.
Names of OPs No.1 & 2 deleted vide order dt.17/05/2019.
Sh. G. S. Dhaliwal Adv. counsel for OP No.3.
ORDER
B. S. DHALIWAL, MEMBER
1. This complaint is filed by complainant Roop Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( here-in-after referred as Act) against The Director, Delhi Foreign Postal Services & others (here-in-after referred as Opposite parties).
2. Brief case of the complainant is that he had booked and sent the parcel containing costly clothes weighing 6550 grams to Rajinder Singh r/o United Kingdom through OP No.3. The said parcel has not delivered to the addressee till date. After that complainant had sent a letter to OP No.3 who has not given any reply to the complaint of the complainant. Complainant has also sent a complaint to OPs No.1 & 2, who also have not given any reply regarding the status of the parcel. It is alleged that due to non delivery of parcel, the complainant had mentally suffered in the society, a loss of Rs.2 lakh and also a loss of Rs.70,000/- for purchasing medicine. The complainant has sent a legal notice dt.30/4/2019 requested to the OPs to return back the parcel of the complainant or to pay compensation but the OPs have not paid any heed to the complaint of the complainant.
3. In the sequel of these facts, the complainant prayed for:-
a) To pay an amount of Rs.2 Lakh for costly clothes.
b) To pay Rs.70,000/- on account of mental harassment and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
c) Rs.5000/- on account of legal expenses.
4. Complaint against OPs No.1 & 2 was deleted vide order dt.17/05/2019 at the instance of the complainant. Accordingly notice was issued to OP No.3 only.
5. Upon notice OP NO.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply and raised preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the complaint filed by the complainant is premature. The OP has supplied the claim form to the complainant for submitting the claim within three months, but the complainant has not submitted the claim form duly filled in all respects. OP has given reply dt. 29/05/2019 to the legal notice dt.23/04/2019. It is alleged that present complaint is not maintainable in view of exclusive privilege provided under Section 6 of IPO Act 1898, As per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. the (Government) shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal articles in case of transmission by post, except as so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Govt.; 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. It is pleaded that complainant Roop Singh has registered a parcel No.CP159926962IN on 22/2/2019 to be delivered to Sh. Rajinder Singh 24-A, South Road, South Hall Middlex United Kingdom. The article was dispatched by Patiala RMS for further dispatch to Delhi Foreign Post Office, New Delhi on 22/2/2019. In this regard a complaint dt.2/4/2019 was received from complainant that the said parcel was not delivered to addressee. OP No.3 approached Director Delhi Foreign Post office, New Delhi and they replied vide office letter No.FP/RP/Web./ 1976/19 dt. 4.4.19 that the parcel under reference was dispatched to Great Britain on 27/2/2019 vide dispatch No.175 closed in a bag No.75, closed in bag No.02, boarded in Flight No.9Wo122 (Jet Airways) and accordingly the case was taken with UK Administration through CSS (Cricket Inquiry System). The complainant served a legal notice regarding non-delivery of parcel, thereafter Delhi Foreign postal services, New Delhi send reply through email dt.15/5/2019 that the settlement has been done on the part of JET Airways and claim paper has been sent to OP No.3 vide letter no.FP/RP/Web/1976/19 dt.14/5/2019 and the same was forwarded to the complainant vide office letter No.CR/Complaint/2019-20 dt. 20/5/2019. Further it is alleged by OP No.3 that instead of submitting the claim form, the complainant issued Legal Notice on 23.4.2019 and the same was duly replied on 26/5/2019 and without waiting any further proceedings of claim and without submitting the claim form, complainant has filed a complaint on 09/05/2019. It is alleged that complaint is bad for non-impleading the necessary parties and misjoinder of unnecessary parties which are mandatory under the law. On merits, it is alleged that complaint is admitted to the extent that the complainant had got booked the parcel but denied the fact that there are costly clothes in the parcel. No price value has been declared by the complainant of the parcel articles.
6. It is further alleged that on receiving the complaint from the complainant the matter was inquired without any delay. Supdt. Foreign Post, New Delhi took the matter with U.K. Postal Administration through CSS (Cricket Inquiry System) and the Authority of Foreign Post, New Delhi asked vide letter dt.4/4/2019 to wait till reply is received from concerned Air lines. Further vide letter dt.1/6/2019, the Inspector Post (Pb.) FPO, New Delhi informed the Asstt. Director (PB) office of CPMG, Delhi Circle, New Delhi that the case has been settled at cost of Jet Airways Airlines and claim papers have been dispatched to the Sr. Supdt. Post Offices, Patiala Division, Patiala, Punjab. It is alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and even otherwise, the complaint is premature and is not maintainable. All other averments made in the complaint are denied and requests for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
8. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-2 copy of complaint, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 postal receipts and closed the evidence.
9. Ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA short affidavit of Ms Aarti Verma, Ex.OPB detailed affidavit of Ms. Aarti Verma, Sr. Suptd. Post Offices, Patiala along with documents Ex.OP-1 copy of legal notice , Ex.OP-2 copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.OP-3 copy of section VI of Post Office Act, Ex.OP-4 copy of complaint dt.2/4/2019, Ex.OP-5 copy of office letter No.FP/RP/Web/ 1976/19 dt.4/4/2019, Ex.OP-6 copy of bag No.02 boarded in Flight No.9Wo122 (Jet Airways), Ex.OP-7 copy of letter No.FP/RP/Web/ 1976/19 dt.14/5/2019, Ex.OP-8 copy of claim form, Ex.OP-9 copy of office letter No.CR/Complaint/2019-20 dt.20/5/2019, Ex.OP-10 copy of regd. Notice dt.23/4/2019, Ex.OP-11 copy of reply of notice and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The complainant has submitted that the OP has wrongly denied the averments of the complaint and reiterated the contentions made therein.
12. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the OP has also reiterated the contentions made in the reply. The arguments of ld. Counsel for OP No.3 mainly focused and revolved on the legal issues. It is submitted that the complaint is pre-mature; OP No.3 has supplied the claim form to the complainant for submitting the same within three months duly filled and complete in all respects; inspite of the fact that the complainant earlier issued legal notice dt.23/4/2019 and OP No.3 responded the notice vide reply dt.29/5/2019 and without waiting the result / outcome, the complainant has filed the present complaint. The other contention is that the complaint is not maintainable as per various provisions enshrined under the IPO Act 1898 and apart from it the complainant deserved to be dismissed even on merit also. The ld. Counsel for OP relied upon the following judgments/ orders:-
i) 2012 (1) Apex Court Judgments 234 (S.C) Coal Mines P.F. Commr. Thr. Board of Trustee Vs. Ramesh Chandra Jha passed by Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.41 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No.5827 of 2011.
ii) Complaint No.CC/09/86 of 14/10/2009 titled as Sanjay Garg versus Head Post Master & Others decided on 16/08/2011 passed by this Forum.
iii) Complaint No. CC/09/879 of 20/10/2009 titled as Baljinder Kaur & another versus Sr. Supdt. Of Post Office decided on 09/05/2011 passed by this Forum
iv) 2002 (II) CPJ 339 Ram Lal Sharma vs State Minister for Communications & Ors. Passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. v) 1994 (2) 143 Senior Superintendent Post Offices Vs. Balbir Singh passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in F.A.No.232 of 1993.
13. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions.
14. Before going into the merits of the case, it is construed to be prudent to first analize the legal issues raised by the Ld. Counsel for OP No.3. Foremost important issue is whether the complaint is premature?” If the complaint is found to be premature as alleged then the other contentions i.e. maintainability under the statutory law based on various judgments will be deemed to be rendered no-issues, therefore, we first take up the issue as to whether the complaint is premature.
15. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had booked a parcel with OP No.3 to be sent to United Kingdom and this fact is corroborated by Ex.C-1. The parcel did not reach its destination. The complainant has taken up the matter of non delivery of article with OP No.3 on 2/4/2019 and this fact is substantiated by Ex.OP-4 and thereafter complainant got served a legal notice dt.30/4/2019 upon the OPs under registered cover.
On this complaint dt.2/4/2019 of the complainant for non delivery of his parcel the department of OP No.3 promptly and without wasting any time taken up the matter with concerned quarters to come to some logical conclusion and this fact is authenticated by letter dt.4/4/2019 (Ex.OP-5). Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, Govt. of India wrote a letter dt.14/5/2019 (Ex.OP-7) to furnish claim papers duly filled by the sender, so that necessary orders for compensation to the sender may be issued.
The legal notice of the complainant was duly responded by OP vide letter dt.17/05/2019 (Ex.OP-6), the contents of which are as under:-
“The above particularized Regd. Parcel was booked on 22.02.2019 at Patiala Head Post Office under Patiala Division & was consigned to Delhi Foreign Post Office on 22/02/2019. As per track & trace report of the Department Website, article under reference was received at Delhi Foreign Post office on 27/2/2019. Delhi Foreign Post replied vide letter No.FP/RP/WEB-1976/19 dated 04.04.2019 that the Parcel under reference was dispatched to Great Britain on 22.02.2019 vide dispatch No.75, closed in Bag No.02, boaded in flight No.9W0122 (jet Airways) and the case was taken up with UK Postal Administration through Cricket Inquiry System.
Now, Delhi Foreign Post intimated through email that the settlement has been done, at the past of jet airways and claim paper has been sent to you shortly”.
This letter was followed by another letter (Ex.OP-9) from OP No.3 to the complainant vide which the claim form was forwarded to him to complete it in all respects to settle the matter.
16. By taking all the facts into considerations in its totality, it is established that the OP No.3 has never refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant for the loss of the parcel. The only minor lapse we find on the part of OP No.3 that it would have given interim reply to the complainant that the matter is under active consideration of the OP Department and in the official process some time are normally consumed as there are certain formalities and modalities which are to be followed in official process to settle such matters. The complainant was/ is required to submit the claim form complete in all respect even it was received by him after filling of the present complaint. The OP No.3 Department can not settle the matter without following the due process. The perusal of letter dt.14/05/2019 ( Ex.OP-7) of Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, Govt. of India clearly reveals that necessary orders for compensation to the sender will be issued after receipt of claim form/ papers complete in all respect.
17. In view of the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complaint is premature and in the given situation there is no necessity to go into other issues in the matter and under these circumstances following directions are given:-
i) That the complainant will comply with the letter dt.14/05/2019 (Ex.OP-7), letter dt.17/05/2019 (Ex.OP-6) and submit the Claim Form/ paper complete in all respect along with requisite documents with OP No.3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
ii) That the OP No.3 will get the matter settled by passing the speaking and reasoned order after the receipt of claim form/ papers complete in all respect within a period of 90 days.
18. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
19. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 19/12/2019.
B. S. Dhaliwal Inderjeet Kaur
Member Member
