Delhi

North East

CC/292/2013

Sh. Himanshu Nishad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 292/13

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Himanshu Nisad S/o Shri Azad Nisad R/o A-7/52, Gali No.8 Bhajanpura, Delhi-53.		Complainant
		Versus
	1.     2.	The General Post Master G.P.O Kashmere Gate, Delhi.   The Post Master P.O. Bhajanpura Delhi-53.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		23.09.2013
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		12.01.2018
			DATE OF DECISION      :		18.01.2018

 

 

Sh. N.K.Sharma, President:-

Sh. Ravindra Shankar Nagar:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant is that he had sent an application through speed post using the OP2- Post office Bhajanpura medium of dispatch services on 11.05.2013 from Delhi to Kanpur containing the filled up form for entrance examination of MBBS / UPCPMT. The complainant submitted that as per rules and regulations, the said speed post was supposed to reach the destination within 48 hours of its dispatch but instead the same reached belatedly on 20.05.2013 whereas the complainant was supposed to sit for the said examination on 15.05.2013 and due to the later delivery of the speed post to its destination due to the delay by the OP the complainant could not sit for the examination, on the coaching of which at Akash Institute, the complainant had incurred an expenditure of about Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant had written to the SPM Post Office incharge Karkardoma vide letter dated 27.05.2013 to expedite resending of his form to Kanpur University since the same has been returned by the University due to delay and expiry of last date of submission but there was no assistance given by the OPs.  The complainant has alleged that such act and omission of OP is illegal, unlawful and has caused him financial, physical and mental agony and tension amounting to deficiency in service. OP2 is working under the kind control, supervision and guideline of OP1 and therefore jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Lastly the complainant stated that he had send a legal notice dated 30.07.2013 through his counsel to both the OPs but no response thereto was given by either. Therefore the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint seeking directions from this Hon’ble Forum that the OPs be directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation / damages for causing financial loss, physical and mental agony and tension alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization alongwith cost of the complaint and any other relief.
2. Notice was issued upon OPs and common written statement was filed by both the OPs taking primary defence that the minimum delivery norm as provided by Department of Post, Citizen Charter of Department of Post was that of four days and even by this standard, the said post would have reached on 16^th may 2013 whereas the last date for acceptance of the form contained therein by the University was 15^th May 2013 and since the speed post reached its destination on 6^th day (voluntary admission / statement by the OP), the receipt for same was declined by the University. The OP further took the defence that under Section 6 of India Post office Act 1898, it has been exempted from liability loss mis-delivery, delay or damages.  The extract of section 6 of the Indian Postal Act 1898, are given hereunder for the kind perusal of this Ld. Forum:-

“6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage:-     The (Government) shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.”

The OP further took the plea that the complainant availed services of the OP as provided under Indian Post Office Act, 1898,read with Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 as amended upto date which are also binding upon the complainant.  OP further submitted that under the Citizen’s Charter of Department of Posts as issued on 25.08.2012, the OP delivered that speed post article within the stipulated time and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. The OP also stated that they are basically providing public services to the public at large and under the circumstances of the present case there is no deficiency in service or there is no wilful default or fraudulent act on the part of the OP and as such the OP are not liable for any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage. The OP also averred that under the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant while approaching the Ld. Forum concealed the material fact that the Department of Posts as a responsible government department has issued Citizen’s Charter which prescribes that the speed post articles should be delivered at the destination within six working days(excluding Sunday and holidays) and in the case of the complainant the speed post article in question reached its destination on sixth day as per the requirement of citizen’s charter of the department and as such the complaint is clearly misusing the process of law while concealing the material fact and therefore the complaint without any cause of action and liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.

The OP further alleged that the complainant has fraudulently filed this complaint while concealing material fact in order to extract some illegal benefit from the OP while misusing the process of law and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no such assurance that the speed post article will reach at its destination in 24 hours by the speed post department nor the citizen’s  charter of the Department of posts prescribes any such time limit and as such the complainant is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal on this sole ground. The OP further took the defence that there is no damage to the complainant as alleged in the complainant and moreover that alleged damage is too remote  that is impossible to foreseen by the department, which was not informed to the department, which was not informed to the department at the time of post by the complainant. Further the claim of the complainant is against the spirit/requirement of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP relied upon the law led down by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal commission in the matter of “Head Post Master And Ors. Vs Vijay Rattan Aggarwal” a Consumer Forum is bound by the terms of the contract howsoever Oppressive these may be unless those terms are against public policy, illegal or void.  The Hon’ble National Commission further observed that:- “Complaints regarding any article booked under Sped Post (including demand for refund of fees in cases of non-delivery of articles within the stipulated time) are to be preferred within three months from the date of booking of the articles.  Rule 66-B was further amended by inserting two more sub rules which provided that in case of delay of speed Post article beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts from time to time compensation will be provided which shall be equal to composite Speed Post charges paid.  It also provided that in the event of loss of Speed Post article or loss of contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of the composite fee Speed Post charges paid or Rs.1,000/-which can be granted when there is a loss of its contents or even damage to the contents.” The extract of Sub-Rule 5 of rule 66-B of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 as amended by notification No. GSR 40(E) dated 21.1.1999 are given hereunder for kind perusal by this Hon’ble Forum as under:

“Rule 66-B (5): there will be no delivery of these articles on Sundays and other holidays in the post offices concerned.

Explanation:-For the purposes of this rule “Inland Speed Post Service means the service means the service which seeks to deliver postal articles within stipulated time, specified in respect of each city or town, as the case may be from time to time, by a special messenger or conveyance. In case of delay in delivery of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the Department of Post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charges paid. In the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid of Rs.1,000/- whichever is less.”

The OP further took the defence under law led down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of “Union of India (UOI) And Ors, Vs R.C. Puri” in case of delay the postal department is liable only when the speed post delay is beyond the specified period under the postal rules (also Citizen’s charter of Department of Post) and held that:- “Considering said Rule 66-B and the provision contained in Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which provides for exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, this commission held that in case of delay in delivery of speed post article beyond posts from time-to-time, the compensation shall be equal to composite speed post charges paid; in the event of loss of speed post article or loss of contents or damage to the contents, the compensation payable shall be double the amount of the composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less.  Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Forum cannot grant compensation more than what is statutorily fixed.  Thus, the consequences flowing as a result of delay in delivery of speed post article as in present case, has no relevance whatsoever in matter of award of compensation beyond what is statutorily fixed by Rule 66B.” In view of the aforesaid observation of the National Commission the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3. Replication to the written statement and evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant reiterating his grievance of late delivery and placed on record the RTI query made by him to Department of Post India on 29.01.2014 and reply thereto by Ministry of Communication and IT, Department of Post mail Business (Development an Operation) Division dated 5^th February 2014 in which the Director mail Management had himself admitted that the norms for delivery of Speed post article between Delhi and Kanpur is 2 to 3 days subject to exclusion of day of posting, holidays and Sunday and that the article should be posted/booked before cut of time.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit filed by OP exhibiting material documents in their defence interalia citizen charter of Department of Post for justification of delivery of Speed post article for rest of India other then metro cities for 4 to 6 days.
5. Written arguments were filed by both the parties and oral arguments were also addressed alongwith case laws filed in support of their case/defence. At this point, this Forum had taken initiative to bring crystal clarity to the present dispute in hand of late delivery of parcel and directed the complainant to send a consignment through registered post on the same address and same day of the week i.e. Saturday and at the same time i.e. after 11:00 AM as was done by him in 2011 which has given birth to the present complaint. The complainant was directed to file the track report of the same. The complainant did the needful and filed the track consignment report according to which the item was booked on 09.12.2017 at 11:11 AM and was delivered to KP University Kanpur on 12.12.2017 at 03:00 PM.  The said report is conclusive and comprehensive and self explanatory leaving no room for any ambiguity as to the turnaround time for dispatch till delivery in cities other than metros by the Postal Department.
6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties in terms of arguments addressed and have carefully and thoroughly perused the case file alongwith documents relied upon by both the parties and the case laws filed by them. It is not in dispute that the consignment was received from the complainant by the OP on 11.05.2013 and delivered on the provided address on 20.05.2013 excluding the weekends on the 7^th day i.e. 20.05.2013 which delay belies and exceeds the timeline given in the citizen charter filed by the OP itself and therefore inexplicable more so in the light of latest track consignment report filed by the complainant on the intervention / initiative / instruction by this Forum which is sufficient to attribute negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP qua the complainant. The Honb’le National Commission in a recent judgment in case of Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs Garima Gupta III (2017) CPJ 251 (NC) had dealt with a similar issue and reliance by the Postal Department on immunity under Section 6 of IPO Act was found bereft of any merit and the order under challenged was reinstated / reinforced. We are therefore of our consider opinion that grave prejudice was caused to the complainant by the inordinate, inexplicable and unjustifiable delay on the part of OP in delivery of his vital document i.e. CPMT entrance test form to the desired/intended address which due to late delivery after the cut of date was rejected by the addressee. Having regard to the fact that a young student lost a valuable one year in sitting for the medical entrance and having spent approx Rs. 1,00,000/- on coaching at prestigious and expensive premier organization like Aakash Institute, we award a sum of      Rs. 50,000/-  towards compensation / damages to the complainant, physical mental agony and tension and crucial loss of one year alongwith interest                @ 9%p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We also award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the complaint / litigation expenses payable to the complainant by the OP. Let the order be complied within 30 days of its receipt.   
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to record room.

 

Announced On  (18.01.2018)   

 

(N.K. Sharma)                President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member