Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/19/2022

C.K.Mathivanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Head Post Master,Head Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Jai Hari Sudhan

11 Jan 2024

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :12.01.2022    Date of disposal            :11.01.2024

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                    TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                : MEMBER-1

                               THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA       : MEMBER II

 

 

C.C. No.19/2022

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY 2024

 

 

Shri.C.K.Mathivanan

S/o.Late Sr.Ch.Krishnan

S4 Sayani Complex (A Block)

96 Konnur High Road,

Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.                                                         .. Complainant.                                

..Vs..

 

1.The Director General of Posts,

Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

 

2.The Chief Post Master General,

Department of Posts, O/o.Cheif Post Master General

Tamil nadu Postal Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.

 

3.The Head Post Master

Head Post Office, Anna Salai,

Mount Road, Chennai-02.

                                                                                         ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. V.Jai hari sudhan

Counsel for   opposite parties                   : M/s.R.Kumar (Memo Appearance)

 

ORDER

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to directing the Opposite parties to pay Rs.14,090/- towards postal charges and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards material costs and to pay Rs.75,000/- towards stress and mental agony and to payRs.25,000/- as penalty for the deficiency of service of the postal department and cost of the complaint.

 

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

         The case of the complainant is that complainant had booked two air parcels at Anna Road Head Post Office on 12.07.2021 to Shri K.M. Ajay Castro, 62, Court Street (North), Dundee, DD37NS, Scotland, United Kingdom and paid Rs.14 090/- as postal charges.  Since the said parcels were not delivered in time, the complainant had approached the postal authorities and Foreign Post Office, Chennai-600001 but they failed to give proper reply and hence the complainant had sent representations to Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Hon’ble Minister for Communications & IT, Hon’ble Minister of State for Communication & IT, Government of India but nothing has come out fruitfully.  Later it is learnt that one of the parcel was wrongly/negligently sent to United States of America instead of United Kingdom which shows the lethargic way of handling things by postal authorities.  The complainant further submits that one of the parcel sent to United States of America had returned to India and on 27.08.2021 someone from Ayanavaram Post Office called the complainant and asked to pay Rs.1,700/- for returning that parcel which was booked to United Kingdom.  The fate of the second parcel was not known till date.  The complainant’s efforts to address the deficiency of service by postal authorities to concerned authorities and Ministers not yielded any result and hence the complainant questioning the opposite parties that a) why the parcels booked to United Kingdom was shipped to USA ? b) Why the postal department has not taken an iota of interest to redirect the parcels from USA to United Kingdom? c) Why the complainant had to pay Rs.1,700/- for not delivering the parcel to addressee?  The complainant submits that it is a crystal-clear case that postal authorities had miserably failed to handle the matter in a proper perspective and in such a situation the complainant will not pay anything in addition to the charges already collected by the opposite parties and in turn the postal department has to bear all the costs for this grave mistake.  The complainant further submits that he had issued a legal notice on 06.09.2021 to opposite parties and 2^nd opposite party had written a letter to Superintendent, Foreign Post, Chennai-600001 on 30.09.2021 directing them to send a report along with copy of reply given to complainant.  The complainant further submits that after collecting fees, it is obligatory on the part of opposite parties to deliver the goods to the person concerned and if it is not delivered, the same should be returned to the sender along with reasons.    In both the cases the opposite parties have not taken any effort to redirect the parcels to correct address, thus the opposite parties mishandled the whole issue and caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and therefore the postal department deserves to pay exemplary cost for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.  The complainant prays this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.14,090/- towards postal charges, Rs.20,000/- towards material costs, Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental stress and mental agony and Rs.25,000/- as penalty for the deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The opposite parties denies the allegation contained in the complaint and is not maintainable either in law or on facts as false and baseless except those which are specifically admitted hereunder and the Complainant is put to strict proof of these. The Opposite parties submit that the Complainant Sri. C.K. Mathivanan, had booked two registered parcels CT076546215IN and CT076546224IN destined to United Kingdom at Anna Road HPO on 12.07.2021 and paid Rs.14,090/- towards postage at Anna Road H.O. Among the above two registered parcels, one Parcel No.CT076546224IN has been returned to the sender on 07.10.2021. The disposal of another Parcel No.CT076546224IN is not known till date. The Opposite parties denies the allegation made in para.2 & 3 of the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof to prove it.  The parcels were dispatched to Parcel Hub, Chennai on the same day on 12.07.2021 as per the report received from the Director, Chennai Foreign Post, the above mentioned two parcels were further dispatched to Delhi Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Transit Mail office in mail no.140 with bag No.8 & 6 and consigned in INMAC 062674 for onward transmission to UK on 13.07.2021. The said consignment was dispatched in the manifest e / a / s no.8/9 with total 28 bags weighing 391.7kgs to Delhi through Indigo Airlines (6E2279)under Airway bill (AWB) from Chennai Foreign Post on the same day. The Opposite parties denies the allegation made in para. 4 of the Complaint and put the complainant to strict proof to prove it.  On receipt of complaint from Complainant Sri. C.K.Mathivanan, it was found that the Parcel No.CT076546224IN was received at USA instead of UK and the whereabouts of the another parcel No.CT076546215IN is not known till date. Enquiry was taken up with Air India by the Foreign Post. It was intimated by Air India on 17.08.2021 that the Mail No.140 was not handled at their end, and hence there is no question of misroute and requested to check up with Delhi DOP. The Opposite parties submit that meanwhile, an enquiry was taken up with the United States Post on 12.08.2021 to forward the misrouted parcel CT076546224IN to its correct destination. However, the parcel was returned to sender by the US Post. Enquiry was taken up with the Head Record Officer (HRO), Airmail sorting Division (AMSD), New Delhi to enquire and intimate further status on 27.09.2021. The Head Record Officer (HRO), Airmail sorting Division(AMSD), New Delhi has intimated vide letter dated 06.10.2021 that mail bag no.140 with 9 bags weighing 111.5 kg was despatched to London Heathrow (LHR) entered at serial no.2 with total 14 bags weighing 155.04kg in connection with Air India 111 on 16.07.2021. The parcel CT076546224IN might have been misrouted by Air India to USA instead of U.K during its transmission. The Opposite parties submit that in order to avoid further delay in the case, Director Foreign Post has approved for compensation to sender of the articles at the cost of Air India as per Tender Agreement. The eligible compensation for the said two Nos. of Parcels are Rs.17,470/- i.e. for Parcel No.CT076546224IN Rs.6500/- postal charges and Rs.1700/- towards return postal due.  For Parcel No.CT076546215IN Rs. 2000/- towards value and Rs.7270/- towards postage charges. The Opposite parties submit that as per Universal Postal Union Rule 23.3.1, if a parcel is lost, totally rifled or totally damaged, the sender shall be entitled to an indemnity of an amount set in the Parcel Post Regulations. If the sender has claimed an amount less than the amount set in the Parcel Post Regulations, designated operators may pay that lower amount and shall receive reimbursement on this basis from any other designated operators involved. The Opposite parties submit that as sender of the above mentioned foreign registered parcels, the Complainant was residing at Ayanavaram, Chennal-600 023 which comes under the delivery jurisdiction of Chennai City North Division, the approval copy of compensation authorized by Chennai Foreign Post was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Chennai City North Division for obtaining the claim papers from the Complainant Sri.C.K.Mathivanan. Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Chennai City North Division had directed Public Relations Inspector(Postal), Ayanavaram to collect the claim papers from the sender who had attempted to obtain the claim papers from the sender for payment of compensation, the sender had refused to give claim application stating that he will not accept the compensation from the Department of Posts and further that he will claim the compensation from court of law. Once again, the complainant Sri.C.K.Mathivanan was addressed by the Chief Postmaster, Anna road H.O vide his letter no.CRM/ARD/Claim compensation/CKM/ARD /Digs/2022-23 dated 05.05.2022 sending relevant claim application forms and requesting him to submit the same for processing payment of compensation. But the said letter was returned unclaimed by the addressee on 23.05.2022.The Opposite parties submit that the Registered parcel No. CT076546224IN which was returned to sender by the US Post was received at Ayanavaram S.O on 25.08.2021 with Return Postage due (RPD) of Rs.1709/-levied on it. The said article was invoiced to the beat postman for delivery on the same day by Ayanavaram S.O. Based onthe request of the addressee, the SPM, Ayanavaram S.O had returned the parcel to foreign Post requesting the Director, Foreign Post, Chennai vide his letter dated 26.08.2021 to send it to the correct destination i.e U.K.The Opposite parties submit that the parcel was received back at Ayanavaram S.O on 01.09.2021 from Chennai Foreign Post stating that the parcel may be returned to sender and if refused by sender, the same may be redirected to Returned Letter office (RLO), Chennai. Hence the article was issued to the beat postman for delivery on 02.09.2021. Postman delivered an intimation to the addressee. As the addressee did not claim the article, it was despatched to Returned Letter Office (RLO) as unclaimed on 07.10.2021 after making error entry vide E.E No.10 dated 07.10.2021. The complainant did not pay the return postage due, Rs.1709/- as he did not accept to receive the returned article.The Opposite parties submit that the complainant had filed a twitter complaint No.573873 on 06.08.2021 regarding non delivery of registered parcel no.CT076546215IN and CT076546224IN destined to U.K.  for which a reply was sent to the complainant on 06.08.2021 initially stating that the two parcels under reference were dispatched to Delhi IGI Transit Mall office for onward transmission to U.K on 13.07.2021 in Mall no.140 which contained a total of 9 bags and it was requested to await further reply as the case has been taken up with Air India for enquiry.The Opposite parties submit that Chennai Foreign Post on 06.08.2021 with subsequent reminders on 10.08.2021, 16.08.2021 & 17.08.2021 had sent letters to Air India.  Air India replied on 17.08.2021 that the mail was not handed over to their office and requested to check with Delhi DOP. Air India was requested on 17.08.2021 to intimate the reason for misrouting the parcel to USA. Air India replied on 15.08.2021 that the bags in Mail no.140 were not received by them and there was no question of misroute. Hence the case was enquired with Delhi TRANSIT MAIL OFFICE. As no reply was received either from Delhi Transit Mail office or Air India, final reply was not able to be given to the complainant immediately without knowing the actual position of the bags dispatched. Hence the complainant had issued legal notice dated 06.09.2021.The Opposite parties submit that the Delhi Transit Mail office vide letter dated 06.10.2021 received by Chennai Foreign Post had intimated that the said mail was connected with Air India in flight no.AI-111 by Indira Gandhi International Airport Transit Mail office (IGI APTMO/3B) dated 16.07.2021. Hence the case was pursued with Air India and no reply was received from Air India. Meanwhile the complainant had filed consumer court case before Hon’ble DCDRF.  As the reply was not received from Air India, a sum of Rs.17,470/- was authorized as compensation by Chennai Foreign Post vide letter no FP/PLOUT/1980-81/21 dated 29.03.2022 to the sender of two parcels.The Opposite parties submit that since no reply was received either from Delhi Transit Mall office or Air India, final reply was not able to be given by the Chennai Foreign Post to the complainant without knowing the complete details of the parcels. However, the complainant was initially replied on 06.08.2021 and requested to await final reply. The loss of the registered parcel CT076546215IN had happened during transmission of the parcel by Air India and it is beyond the control of the Department of Posts. Hence as per Department rules, eligible compensation was sanctioned to the sender of the articles. But the sender of the two parcels had refused to accept the compensation from the Department and stated that he will claim the compensation in court of law. The Opposite parties submit that as per section 6 of Indian Post office Act 1898, The Department shall not incur any liability by reason for 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 herein after 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. The Opposite parties submit that the Chennai Foreign Post has recommended to make payment of eligible compensation for the two Nos. of Parcels CT076546224IN and CT076546215IN as per Rule 170 of Foreign Post Manual, Rs.17,470/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand four hundred and seventy only) towards Postage charges, Return Postage Due and value of the content of the lost parcel to the complainant. Even though the recommendation copy of letter issued vide letter No.FP/PL OUT/1980-81/2021 dated 29.03.2022 sent through RL No.RT140620075IN dated 30.03.2022 was delivered to the complainant on 11.04.2022, the complainant is yet to submit the claim application for issuing of sanction of the said amount by the Chief Postmaster, Anna Road HO. Under the circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble District Consumer forum may be pleased to dismiss the Compliant in C.C. No. 19 of 2022 and to pass order or such further orders as this Hon'ble District Forum may deem fit and proper and thus render justice. 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainant had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked on his side.The opposite parties had filed written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on their side.Oral submissions of learned counsels for complainant and opposite parties also heard.

4. Point No.1:-

1) The complainant alleged that he had sent two parcels bearing No.CT076546215IN and CT076546224IN by paying postal charges for a sum of Rs.14,090/- on 12.07.2021 at Anna Road Head Post Office to Sri K.M. Ajay Castro, 62, Court Street (North), Dundee, DD37NS, Scotland, United Kingdom of which  one of the parcel was misrouted to USA instead of UK and then it was returned to complainant on further demanding Rs.1700/- towards return postal charges which the complainant refused to pay and receive the returned parcel.  The other parcel was misplaced by the opposite parties and the whereabouts of the same is not traceable till date by the opposite parties.   The complainant written letters to Hon’ble Ministers of Government of India and postal authorities, but no concrete action was taken in this regard and due to the opposite parties deficiency in service the complainant undergone mental agony.  12 documents were marked on the part of complainant.

2) On the other hand the opposite parties admitted that complainant had booked two parcels to UK and one of the parcel was misrouted to USA instead of UK and the other parcel was found missing.  The opposite parties contended that based on the enquiry it was found that one of the parcel was misrouted to USA by Air India and the whereabouts of the other parcel was not known till date. The opposite parties further contended that in order to avoid further delay the Director, Foreign Post has approved a compensation of Rs.17,470/- at the cost of Air India as per Universal Postal Union Rule 170 but the complainant refused to give claim papers and stated that he will claim compensation from court of law.  The returned parcel from USA, on the request of addressee was again sent to Director, Foreign Post, Chennai to send it to the correct destination i.e. UK but it was received back from Chennai Foreign Post to return the parcel to sender.  As the addressee did not claim the parcel the same was sent to Returned Letter Office.  The opposite parties further contended that on receipt of a complaint by complainant in twitter the matter was taken up for enquiry with Air India and the reply from Air India was not received, a sum of Rs.17,470/- was authorized as compensation by Chennai Foreign Post.  The opposite parties further contended that the loss of registered parcel had happened during transmission of the parcel by Air India and it is beyond the control of Department of Posts and u/s 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898, the postal department shall not incur any liability by reason for the loss of mis delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post.   Three documents were marked on the part of opposite parties.

3) We have carefully gone through the averments and documents of complainant and opposite parties and oral submissions of learned counsels of both sides. Admittedly the complainant booked two parcels bearing No. No.CT076546215IN and CT076546224IN by paying postal charges of Rs.14,090/- on 12.07.2021 at Anna Road Head Post Office to Sri K.M. Ajay Castro, 62, Court Street (North), Dundee, DD37NS, Scotland, United Kingdom as evidenced in Ex.A1.  It is observed from Ex. A2 that alleged parcels were bagged by Chennai Foreign Post on 13.07.2021.  It is observed from Ex.A3, A5 and A6 the complainant had taken up the non-delivery of parcels in time with the postal authorities and also Hon’ble Ministers, Government of India for necessary action.  It is observed from Ex.A7, the complainant had informed to Chief Post Master General, Tamilnadu Circle that his parcel sent to UK was returned and asked for the reasons for non-delivery.  On perusal of Ex.A4, it is observed that Parcel No. CT076546224IN was bagged at Chennai Foreign Post Office on 13.07.2021 was received at USA on 09.08.2021 and further it was observed that the parcel was held by Customs of US for returning to sender and bagged on 16.08.2021.   It is further observed that Parcel No.CT076546215IN reached IGI TMO New Delhi on 16.07.2021 with status as “Send receptacle abroad(Otb)”.  It is observed from Ex.A8, the opposite parties had sent a intimation dated 25.08.2021 to complainant to collect the article from the post office.  Dissatisfied with the actions of the opposite parties, the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 06.09.2021 to opposite parties claiming postal charges of Rs.14,090/- Rs.5,000/- being the material cost and Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for stress and mental agony as observed from Ex.A9.  It is observed from Ex.A11, the opposite parties have in their reply notice dated 13.09.2021 stated that they have forwarded the complaint to Superintendent, Foreign Post to take necessary action and a reminder dated 30.09.2021 was also sent to Superintendent, Foreign Post to send a report with reply to complainant.

4) Coming to the merits, with respect to Parcel No.CT076546215IN there is no dispute that the parcel was booked on 12.07.2021 by the complainant to UK.  From the tracking report which is marked as Ex.A4, the alleged parcel had reached IGI TMO New Delhi on 16.07.2021 with delivery location United Kingdom and further movement of the parcel is not reflected.  It is also an admitted fact that the alleged parcel is found missing and whereabouts of the same is not known till date

5) Even after investigation and enquiry conducted by the opposite parties and  as per the averment of the opposite parties and also evidenced in Ex.B3.  Even though the 2^ndopposite party had written a letter to The Superintendent, Foreign Post, Chennai on 13.09.2021 which is marked as Ex.A11 for necessary action and further reminder dated 30.09.2021 which is marked as Ex.A12 for report and reply to complainant, it is observed no report of enquiry for missing of parcel has been filed before this Hon’ble Commission.  The opposite parties failed to file the letter correspondence with the Air India by Chennai Foregin Post as alleged in para 14 of the written version. It is further found that the lack of tracking system to find out the status of the parcel items amounts to negligence on the part of Indian Postal Service due to which the consumers where forced to face many problems. From the above, it is ascertained that alleged parcel had reached IGI TMO New Delhi and found missing thereafter was due to the negligence of the opposite parties.  It is observed from the averments of the opposite parties that once the complainant sent a legal notice and also filed a complaint before this Hon’ble Commission, it appears that opposite parties have not proceeded investigation further to trace out the missing parcel rather they have chosen to close the complaint by compensating the complainant in accordance with Section 6 of Indian Post office Act 1898 and Universal Postal Union Rule 170 which is marked as Ex.B2 at the cost of Air India as per Trade Agreement.  From the above, it appears that opposite parties disowned their responsibility by just writing letters to Foreign post and not persuaded further in investigating the missing parcel and fix the responsibility on the erring officials instead the opposite parties taking shelter u/s 6 of Indian Postal Act 1898 which is marked as Ex.B1 to protect their erring officials.  In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the alleged parcel was missed by the negligence of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are held liable and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

6) Coming to Parcel CT076546224IN which was booked on 12.07.2021 by the complainant to UK and on perusal of Ex. A4, the tracking report it is noted that the alleged parcel was booked on 12.07.2021 at Anna Road H.O. and reached Chennai Foreign Post Office on 13.07.2021 and after customs clearance it was bagged on 13.07.2021 and it reached ISC NEW YORK NY (USPS) on 09.08.2021.  It is further observed that alleged parcel was held by US customs and bagged on 6.08.2021 for returning to sender.  It is observed that the complainant was in constant contact with the opposite parties about non-delivery of parcels as evidenced from Ex.A3, A5 and A6 and only after receipt of complaint from the complainant the opposite parties had initiated action for enquiry and found that the alleged parcel was misrouted to USA instead of UK.  The opposite parties in their averments contended that enquiry was taken up with the United States Post on 12.08.2021 to forward the misrouted parcel to its correct destination but the parcel was returned to sender by the US Post.  From the averment of the opposite parties it is observed that the alleged parcel was received at Ayanavaram S.O. on 25.08.2021 with return post due of Rs.1,709/- and the complainant was also informed on same day as observed from Ex.A7.  It is further observed from the averment of the opposite parties that based on request by the addressee the alleged parcel was sent to Director, Foreign post, Chennai on 26.08.2021 to send to correct destination at UK but on 01.09.2021 the same was received back from Chennai Foreign Post stating to return to sender and if refused by sender advised to redirect to Returned Letter Office.  Accordingly, an intimation was given to complainant by the Ayanavaram S.O. on 25.08.2021 to collect the parcel as noted in Ex.A8.  The opposite parties further contended that the parcel was despatched to Returned Letter Office on 07.10.2021 stating that complainant did not pay the return postage.  The allegation of the complainant is for no fault on the part of complainant why he must pay the Return Postage Due and it is the deficiency on the part of opposite parties who failed to deliver the parcel to the addressee after collecting postal charges. It is not known why the Chennai Foreign Post had refused to send the alleged parcel again to correct destination i.e. UK without any valid reasons and simply tried to close the complaint by returning to Returned Letter Office and putting the blame on complainant that complainant refused to pay the Return Postage Due.  From the above, it appears that the opposite parties officials are not inclined to give better improved service to public and the attitude of the opposite parties in closing the complaint without attempting to take corrective actions is against the public interest and further the opposite party is entitled to take shelter u/s 6 of Indian Postal Act 1898 to protect their erring officials for their negliegence and deficiency in service.

7) The opposite parties in their averments contended that parcels were dispatched to Parcel Hub, Chennai on the same day i.e. 12.07.2021 and further dispatched to Delhi Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Transit Mail office in mail No.140 with bag No.8 & 6 and consigned in INMAC 062674 for onward transmission to UK on 13.07.2021.  The said consignment was dispatched in the manifest e/a/s No.8/9 with total 28 bags weighing 391.7 kgs to Delhi through Indigo Airlines (6E2279) under Airway bill (AWB) from Chennai Foreign post on the same day.  Whereas it is observed from Ex.A2, the alleged parcel was received by Chennai Foreign Post on 13.07.2021 and bagged at Chennai Foreign Post on 13.07.2021 for International Air.  It is also observed from Ex. A4, that the parcel was bagged at Chennai Foreign Post Office on 13.07.2021 and the same was received at ISC NEW YORK NY (USPS) on 09.08.2021.  From the Ex.A4, the tracking report there is no indication about the receipt of the parcel at Delhi as contended by opposite parties.  Whereas in the case of other parcel which is missing, the tracking report clearly indicates that the parcel was received at IGI TMO New Delhi on 16.07.2021 by which it is ascertained that the alleged parcel No.CT076546224IN was not routed through New Delhi but shipped directly to USA from Chennai negligently.  Further the opposite parties in their averments stated that Air India had replied on 17.08.2021 that mail No.140 was not handed over to Air India or received by Air India and hence misrouting the parcel does not arise for the opposite parties letter on 06.08.2021 and subsequent reminders on 10.08.2021, 16,08.2021 and 17.08.2021 which prove that the parcel was not sent through New Delhi.  The opposite parties further contended that the case was taken up with Delhi Transit Mail Office, who vide their letter dated 06.10.2021 intimated that the said mail was connected to Air India in Flight No.AI-111 by Indira Gandhi International Airport Transit Mail Office (IGI APTMO/3B) dated 16.07.2021 and hence the case was pursued with Air India.  The opposite parties further contended that since no reply was received from Air India the final reply was not given to complainant.  It is pertinent to note that opposite parties have failed to provide any material evidence for the correspondence with Delhi Transit Mail Office, Air India and Chenni Foreign Post.  In the absence of any material evidence and from the above stated facts, it is concluded that the alleged parcel was not routed through IGI Airport Transit Mail Office but sent negligently by the officials of opposite parties directly which amounts to deficiency in service for which the opposite parties are liable.

8) The learned counsel for opposite parties contended that in order to avoid further delay and in the absence of any response from Air India have decided to settle the case at the cost of Air India as per Tender Agreement and therefore proposed to compensate the complainant with a sum of Rs.17,470/- which includes postage charges, return postage charges, and value of goods which is evidenced in Ex.B3.  It is observed that opposite parties have forwarded the complaint of complainant to Superintendent of Foreign Post on 13.09.2021 and a reminder on 30.09.2021 which are marked as Ex.A11 and A13 respectively but till date no report of investigation / enquiry was filed by the opposite parties.  In order to close the complaint, the opposite parties have come forward to compensate the complainant as per Universal Postal Union Rule 170 which is marked as Ex.B2 a sum of Rs.17,470/- and forwarded the claim papers to complainant as seen in Ex.B4. 

9) The learned counsel for opposite parties in his oral submissions contended that as per section 6 of Indian Postal Act 1898, “The Government shall  not incur any liability by reasons of loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to, and 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 reasons of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default”. The opposite parties have taken recourse to protection under section 6 of the Act 1898.  In this instant complaint it is observed that one parcel was misrouted and the other one was found missing due to the negligence of officials of opposite parties.  Whereas the opposite parties put the onus on Delhi Transit Mail Office and Air India for not providing any reply and shifting the responsibility upon the Air India and Delhi Transit Mail Office which is unsustainable.

10) The learned counsel for complainant relied on the citation in Post Master, Post Office Vs. Ripan Kumar RP 2508 of 2016, NCDRC wherein it is observed that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act doesn't provide immunity to postal authorities for negligence, remissness, or inaction in discharging their duties. Failure to deliver a speed post article to its addressee constitutes a willful act of deficiency in service. This ruling emphasizes that officials of the Postal Department are not immune to accountability within the Department or before a court/tribunal. The findings of the above case is similar to the present complaint further it is observed in the above said decision and the extracts of the relevant portion of the order is given below :

“21. Section 6 does not intend to provide an unfettered licence to the officials of the Postal Department for inefficiency and mismanagement or to cause loss and injury to its 'consumer'(s). It cannot be that the concerned officials of the Postal Department are immune to accountability within the Department, and also immune to accountability before a court / tribunal of law. And it cannot be that systemic improvements for future are not considered, and loss and injury to its consumers are treated as irrelevant and immaterial. Such reading of Section 6 will be totally irrational and misplaced.

22. Section 6 does not provide unquestionable immunity. The onus to establish that the protection of Section 6 can be taken in the given facts and circumstances of a particular case is on the Postal Department, which onus it has not discharged in this case. From the above facts it is found that the opposite partyis not entitled to claim immunity mechanically by relying upon sec.6 of act 1898 and it is further found that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not delivering a parcel booked by the complainant and in not able to locate the where abouts of another parcel.

Based on the above facts, we are of the considered view that misrouting and missing of parcels were caused due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

5. Point No.2:

Based on the findings given to PointNo.1,since there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant is entitled for Rs.14,090/- towards postal charges. Though the complainant claimed Rs.20,000/- towards material cost in the complaint in the legal notice Ex.A9 he claimed only Rs.5000/- towards material cost. It is found from the available records the complainant has failed to state the nature of material and its value which was sent through parcel but at any event since the booking of parcel is admitted by the opposite parties the complainant is entitled for a nominal material cost of Rs.5000/- from the opposite party and also entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service.  Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

           In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay to complainant Rs. 14,090/- towards postal charges, Rs.5,000/- towards material costs, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony & deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.  The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 11^th day of January 2024.

 

MEMBER I                                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	12.07.2021	Parcel Booked and copy of the postal receipts for the same.
Ex.A2	13.07.2021	Copy of the delivery report-Postal Bag reached Chennai Foreign Post.
Ex.A3	06.08.2021	Copy of the Complainant’s complaint and reply by the respondent.
Ex.A4	16.08.2021	Copy of the delivery reports-Items returned to sender
Ex.A5	20.08.2021	Copy of the complaint to the Minister
Ex.A6	24.08.2021	Copy of the message sent to the Government and Conveyed to approach the Consumer Forum
Ex.A7	25.08.2021	Copy of the complaint to Chief Post Master General, Tamilnadu Circle.
Ex.A8	25.08.2021	Respondent’s intimation to collect the parcel back.
Ex.A9	06.09.2021	Copy of the Legal Notice issued to all the respondents
Ex.A10	09.09.2021 and 11.09.2021	Copy of the Deliver Reports.
Ex.A11	13.09.2021	Copy of the CPMG letter addressed to the counsel in reply to the legal notice.
Ex.A12	30.09.2021	Copy of the CPMG letter addressed to the superintendent, Foreign post, Chennai 600 001.

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

                            

Ex.B1		Copy of Section 6 of Indian Post office Act 1898
Ex.B2		Copy of Rule 170 of Foreign Post Manual
Ex.B3		Copy of Foreign Post letter No.FP/PL OUT/1980-81/2021 dated 29.03.2022
Ex.B4		Copy of Chief Postmaster, Anna Road HPO letter No.CRM/ARD/Claim compensation/CKM/ARD/Dlgs/ 2022-23 dated 05.05.2022

 

 

MEMBER – I                         MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

​