THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE No. CC-  82 of 2019

 

Smt. Mandakranta Chakraborty,

D/O- Sri Manilal Chakraborty,

Resident of Vivekanda Lane, 

P.O. Jogendranagar,

P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura. ...….................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1.  The Director of Postal Services,

Department of Post,

Bapatla H.O., Guntur,

Andhra Pradesh, 522101.

 

2. The Director of Postal Services,

Head office, Post Office Chowmuhani,

Agartala, Tripura West – 799001. ..................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.

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Tanmoy Chakraborty,

  Learned Advocate.   

  

For the O.P.  : Sri Indrajit Biswas,

Standing Govt. Counsel, Govt. of India.

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  28.04.2021

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant's case in short is that the  complainant was a student of Bapatla Agricultural College and used to reside at Nibedita Girls Hostel, Bapatla, Guntur. During residing at Bapatla, Guntur the complainant on 27.07.2019 has booked a parcel vide its consignment no- CA645102536IN from Bapatla Post Office, Guntur under India Post for its destination at Agartala in her residence in the name of her father Sri Manilal Chakraborty. The said parcel contained of some valuable books, some costly gift items for family members and some clothes. The value of these items are more or less than Rs.16,500/-. After some days the complainant tried to track the status of the said parcel and found that was not reached at Agartala. Then the complainant has made a complaint to postal department stating non delivery of the parcel. Postal department remained silent about the complaint. Thereafter the complainant came to Agartala, her place of residence on 25.08.2019. As already one month elapsed complainant had registered a complaint before Centralized Public Grievance Redress and monitoring System on 29.08.2019. But the department did not pay any heed thereto. On several occasion the complainant visited before the opposite party no.2 to know about the status of the parcel but in each and every occasion the O.P. No. 2 assured her that they will look into the matter and she will receive the parcel soon. However, after two months the parcel has not yet been reached at Agartala and the department is ignoring the complainant presently. Inspite of several persuasion the postal department is neglecting the complainant with her grievances which shows deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the actions of the O.Ps the complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.51,500/-. Hence this complaint. 

 

2. On the other hand O.P. also appeared and contested the suit by way of filing written reply. In the written objection O.P. stated that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and nature. It is also stated that the complaint is barred by the principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiesces and hence the same is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is stated that the complaint was filed by the complainant with some oblique motive and suppressing some materials facts and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. The O.Ps admitted that the Registered parcel bearing no- CA645102536IN was booked at Bapatla Head Post Office, Tenali Postal Department Division, Andhra Pradesh Circle on 27.07.2019 at 1.08 hours. It is also stated that it cannot be proved that the parcel contained valuable books, gifts and clothes of the intrinsic value of Rs.16,500/- as alleged by the complainant. The O.Ps admitted that the complainant registered the complaint before the Postal Department regarding non- delivery of the parcel. The complaints were looked into by the department. In this regard, Bapatla Head Post Office being the booking office requested the sender to represent for claim of compensation, if any as per departmental norms.  It is stated by the O.Ps that since the article had not reached Agartala Postal Division that time, the matter was given due gravity and taken up with respective offices. It is further stated by the O.Ps that a letter was issued by the Bapatla Head Post Office addressing to the sender, requesting the sender to represent for claim of compensation, if any, as per departmental norms.  It is also stated that the sender of the  parcel/articles only entitled for ex-gratia compensation amounting to Rs.100/- in case of loss. Pilferage, damage or abstraction of contents of the registered parcel as per departmental norms. It is further stated that the complaint ought to have been made in the respective Forum of Tenali Postal Division, Andhra Pradesh Circle and as such the complaint suffers from territorial jurisdiction  and deserves to be dismissed. The O.Ps stated that there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of them and the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

 

Complainant submitted examination in chief on affidavit and some documents(5 nos.) are also filed which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. She is also cross examined. 

On the other hand, O.P. submitted examination in chief on affidavit of one witness namely Sri Anish Kondal.  

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether the complaint is maintainable in law?

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

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

 

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

At the time of arguments Learned Counsel of the complainant submitted that there is no dispute in respect of the booking of a parcel vide its consignment no-CA645102536IN from Bapatla Post Office, Guntur, India Post on 27.07.2019 for its destination at Agartala in the residence of the complainant in the name of her father Sri Manilal Chakraborty. It is also admitted fact that the said parcel was not delivered by the O.P. to the addressee. Complainant in her deposition stated that the parcel contained of some valuable books, some costly gifts items, some cloths which are valued more or less Rs.16,500/-. Complainant also deposed that the cause of action has arisen on 27.07.2019 when she booked a parcel and it was continued up to when approached before the postal department. Complainant also deposed there was deficiency in service from the side of the O.P. for which she is entitled to get compensation. Learned Advocate of the complainant submitted that the complainant has been able to prove her case and she is entitled to get compensation as prayed for. On the other hand Learned Advocate Mr. Indrajit Biswas submitted that the complaint is not maintainable both under question of territorial jurisdiction as well as under provision of Section-6 of India Post office Act, 1998. Mr. Biswas submitted that as per complaint petition the parcel was booked at Batpatla Guntur, Andra Pradesh on 27.07.2019 and cause of action arose at Baptla, Guntur. Hence, the complaint ought to have been made in the Forum of Tenali Postal Division, Andrapradesh circle and this Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction as per provision of Section-11 of the C.P. Act, 1986. Mr. Biswas further submitted that under Section 6 of the India Post Office Act, the O.P. are not liable to pay any compensation as it is a statutory provision. In this regard Mr. Biswas relied upon the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which is decided in Revision Petition no- 986 of 1996 by a Larger Bench. At last Mr. Biswas submits that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

     

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

We have  gone through the pleadings of both parties. There is no disputes in respect of the cause of action. Complainant in her complaint as well as examination in chief on affidavit specifically stated that on 27.07.2019 she booked a parcel vide its consignment no. CA645102536IN from Bapatla Post Office, Guntur for its destination at Agartala in her residence in the name of her father Sri Manilal Chakraborty. At Para 14 of the complaint, complainant stated that at present she is residing under the jurisdiction of this Commission(Forum) and the O.Ps have also its office at Agartala and as such this Commission/Forum has jurisdiction to try the instant case. In this regard I may refer to the provision of Section 11 of the C.P. Act, 1986. Sub Section-2 of Section 11 specifically deals with the matter about the territorial jurisdiction and I am reproducing the said provision 11(2) as follows:-

'A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of  whose jurisdiction,-

 

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

 

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution, or 

 

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.'

 

7. As per above provision we find that the residence of the complainant is not a matter to be considered or looked into but Sub Section -2 (clause-b) provides that taking permission from the District Forum if there is any Branch office or any of the O.Ps carries on business is required. In the instant case complainant did not seek any permission of the District Commission(Forum) for institution of the complaint under the jurisdiction of this Forum which ought to have been sought. So, we are in the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable in the question of territorial jurisdiction. 

 

8. Now we will decide whether O.Ps are exempted from any liability U/S 6 of the India Post Office Act, 1998. Section-6 of the India Post Office Act, 1998 states as follows:-

''Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. The (Govenrment) shall not incur any liability by reason of the 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.''

 

We have gone through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which is decided in Revision Petition No- 986 of 1996 by a larger bench. The judgment was given by the Hon'ble justice Mr. Suhas Chandra Sen, President and 4 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 principles. In our view this decision is clearly applicable in the instant case. So, we are in the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable in law also. Accordingly we decide the issue no. 1 in the negative.

 

10. ISSUE NO. 2 & 3:-

In view of the decisions arrived at  issue no. 1, there is no necessity to decide these two issues. Resultantly, these two issues are also decided in the negative.

 

 

 

 

11. ORDER:-

In view of the decisions arrived at issue no.1 we are in the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable in the question of territorial jurisdiction as well as in the eye of law. Hence, complaint is dismissed. No costs. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of costs. 

  

Announced.

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.