Tripura

StateCommission

A/24/2021

Smt. Mandakranta Chakraborty - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director of Postal Service - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. T. Chakraborty

07 Dec 2021

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

Case No. A.24.2021

 

 

 

1. Smt. Mandakranta Chakraborty,

D/o Sri Manilal Chakraborty,

Resident of Vivekanda Lane, 

P.O. Jogendranagar,

P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Complainant.

 

Vs

 

 

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.

… … … …  Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

Present

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya

Member

[Officiating President]

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das

Member

State Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, Adv.

For the Respondents:                            Mr. Biswanath Majumdar, Ld. C.G.C.

Date of Hearing:                                    14.09.2021.

Date of Delivery of Judgment:               07.12.2021.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 28.04.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Commission), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.82 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint petition filed by the complainant, the appellant herein, being not maintainable on the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction as well as in the eye of law.

2. Heard Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Biswanath Majumdar, Ld. C.G.C. appearing for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties).
3. The case of the appellant-complainant as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the appellant-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 some valuable books, some costly gift items for her family members and some clothes. The value of these items are more or less Rs.16,500/-. After some days, the complainant tried to track the status of the said parcel and found that it was not reached at Agartala, then the complainant has made a complaint to Postal Department stating non delivery of the parcel, but the 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, the complainant had registered a complaint before Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System on 29.08.2019, but then also, the Postal Department did not pay any heed to her grievance. On several occasions, complainant visited before the opposite party no.2 to know about the status of the parcel, but in each and every occasion the opposite party no.2 assured her that they will look into the matter and she will receive the parcel soon. However, after passing of two months, the said parcel yet not reached to Agartala and the Postal Department was ignoring the complainant. In spite of several persuasions, the Postal Department was neglecting the complainant with her grievances which shows deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the actions of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint petition vide Case No.C.C.82 of 2019 before the learned District Commission claiming compensation of Rs.51,500/-.

4. Upon receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the case by way of filing written objection. In the written objection, the opposite parties stated that the complaint petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable. It is stated that the complaint petition is barred by the principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiesces and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is also stated that the complaint petition was filed by the complainant with some oblique motive and suppressing some materials facts. It is admitted by the opposite parties 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 01:08 hours. It is again 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. They also admitted that the complainant registered the complaint before the Postal Department regarding non delivery of the parcel and those complaints were looked into by the Department. More so, a letter was issued by the Bapatla Head Post Office being the booking office requesting the sender to represent for claim of compensation, if any, as per Departmental norms.  It is further stated that since the article had not reached at Agartala Postal Division that time, the matter was given due gravity and taken up with respective offices.  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 Postal Departmental norms. Furthermore, the complaint petition 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.

Thus, there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as contended by the opposite party.

5. Complainant submitted examination-in-chief on affidavit along with five documents which are marked as Exhibit-1 series. She is also cross examined by the opposite parties.
6. On the other hand, opposite parties examined one witness, namely, Sri Anish Kondal.
7. The learned District Commission after considering the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence adduced by the parties passed the impugned judgment.
8. As aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant-complainant has preferred the instant appeal.
9. Mr. Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel has contended that he has submitted written argument before the learned District Commission giving therewith a copy of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1278 of 2016 vide order dated 6^th October, 2017. He has mentioned that the said judgment referred by him mentioned, inter alia, that “..........................The petitioner cannot take shelter behind Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act to absolve of its responsibility by merely stating that the respondent/ complainant should have kept track of the article on the postal website of the day today movement of the article. It is for the petitioner to render the service for their premium product of speed post. Hence, there is a clear cut deficiency of service on their part and the department continues to seek shelter under Section 6 of the Postal Act for its omissions and commissions in non-delivery of the article in time…………..” In the said judgment it is further mentioned that “………………………I find that no jurisdictional or legal error or misrepresentation of facts have been shown which calls for any interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act……………….” According to him, his submission made by him before the learned District Commission has not been examined by the learned District Commission for arriving at a decision about the maintainability of the case on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and deficiency of service. Nowhere in the judgment of learned District Commission has any reference to his citation and submission made by him is available. Under the circumstances, Mr. Chakraborty has pointed out that his submission before the learned District Commission on these two vital issues left unexamined. He has also pointed out that the case is maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as the cause of deficiency of service arose at Agartala where the complainant resides and that the complainant is a valid consumer as per the C.P. Act. He has therefore, contended that the judgment delivered by the learned District Commission vide order dated 28.04.2021 suffers from the error of his submission being unrepresented in decision making analysis of the case. He has therefore, appealed that the case law referred by him may be examined for a lawful decision. With this submission he has appealed for setting aside the impugned judgment of learned District Commission dated 28.04.2021 and allow due compensation for the complainant.
10. Mr. Majumdar, Ld. C.G.C. has mentioned that there is no wrong in the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2021 passed by the learned District Commission dismissing the complaint petition. He has further elaborated that the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, it is rightly decided by the learned District Commission. He has contended that the fact and circumstances of the referred judgment in Post Office & Anr. Vs Akhilesh Grover [Revision Petition No.1278 of 2016] is not applicable for determining the maintainability of the case. Furthermore, Mr. Majumder has submitted that while delivering the judgment by the Hon’ble National Commission dated 06.10.2017 in the said referred judgment did not consider the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission (Larger Bench) in The Post Master, Imphal & Others Vs Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband [Revision Petition No.986 of 1996]. Therefore, the said judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission may not be a relevant one to discuss the maintainability in the instant case. He has mentioned that the decision of the learned District Commission in the impugned judgment is based on well settled principles of law that Section 06 of Indian Post Office Act gives complete immunity to the Postal Authority and there is, therefore, no reasons to depart from this well established principles. He has further contended that Hon’ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also on a number of previous occasions has pronounced judgments regarding the maintainability on the aforesaid stand point of law. He has cited the judgments of Andhra Pradesh State Commission in The Purchase Manager Vs The President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai-20 & Another [W.P. No.2863 of 2009 and M.P (MD) No. 1 of 2009].
11.  We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment. We have also considered the submissions of both the Counsels. According to us, the learned District Commission examined all the relevant facts and issues of the case and then passed the impugned judgment. Regarding non-examination of the content of referred judgment in Revision Petition No.1278 of 2016, we accept the views of Ld. Counsel for the respondent-opposite parties that while passing the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble National Commission did not consider the content of judgment of Hon’ble National Commission (Larger Bench) in Revision Petition No.986 of 1996. Therefore, non-consideration of the content of referred judgment is not an error on the part of learned District Commission in stating the impugned judgment. We have also accepted the reasons given in the impugned judgment and therefore, we are not going for detailed discussion on the merit of the case.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that learned District Commission did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala.