DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:772 of 2010] Date of Institution : 30.10.2010 Date of Decision :10.08.2011 --------------------------------------- Sh. Keshav Kansal, Aged 38 years son of Sh. Gian Chand Kansal R/o House No.1007, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. The Head Postmaster, General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 2. The Post Master, Post Office, Sector 19, Chandigarh. 3. The Superintendent, Post Office, Bhiwani, Haryana. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. R. M. Jain, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Keshav Kansal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the price of Saree along with interest @18% per annum; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; iii) To pay costs of litigation. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he booked a parcel with Post Master, Post Office, Sector 19, Chandigarh containing ‘Saree’ for being delivered to his sister-in-law namely Prem Lata Goyal at Bhiwani and paid the required fee for it. (The postal receipt to this effect is Annexure C-2). According to the complainant, he had purchased the said ‘Saree’ for a sum of Rs.5,000/- from Krishna Emporium vide Bill (Annexure C-1). It has further been pleaded that the said parcel did not reach its destination and was lost in transmission. The complainant enquired about the status of the parcel a number of times from Post Office, Sector 19, Chandigarh as well as General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh. However, no satisfactory reply was given to him. The complainant also made several calls to the Post Master at Bhiwani but to no effect. It has further been pleaded that the complainant came to know that some employee of OP No.3 has misused the speed post and the said employee is using the said ‘Saree’ for her own use. Earlier, she promised to pay the cost of ‘Saree’ but later on, she refused to pay the same. Thus, according to the complainant, the employee of OP No.3 has intentionally caused loss to the complainant. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OPs, it has been admitted that on 07.08.2010 the complainant booked a parcel containing some article bearing No.EP031360936IN from Post Office, Sector 19, Chandigarh for being delivered to Ms. Prem Lata Goyal wife of Sh. Harindeer Goyal, House No.146, Purana Housing Board, Bhiwani. The said parcel was instantly consigned to Speed Post Centre, Bhiwani through National Speed Post Centre, Chandigarh. However, later on it transpired that the article was misplaced at Bhiwani and could not be delivered to the addressee. It has been pleaded that the parcel which was booked was sealed and the contents thereof were not disclosed to OPs. So, OPs are not aware of the contents and price of the articles, put inside the parcel. According to OPs, the complaint made by the complainant was dealt with by the department and compensation of Rs.120/- was paid to the complainant as per departmental rules vide cheque No.896170 dated 23.09.2010. It has further been pleaded that in view of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898, OP is exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to the consignment. So, in these circumstances, according to the OPs, the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. 5. Admittedly, a parcel was booked by the complainant for being delivered to the addressee at Bhiwani. Admittedly, the said parcel did not reach its destination and was not delivered to the addressee. 6. There is allegation in the complaint that the parcel was misused by an employee of OP No.3 and the said employee used the ‘Saree’ for her own use. Neither the name of the said employee has been disclosed in the complaint nor the said employee has been impleaded as party. In these circumstances, from such bald allegation, it cannot be held that the loss has been caused to the complainant because of willful act or default on the part of the employee of OPs. 7. The case of the complainant is that he had sent a ‘Saree’ worth Rs.5,000/- in the said parcel. The case of OPs is that the contents and the price of the articles were not disclosed at the time of booking of the parcel. So, OPs are not aware about the contents of the said parcel. It is pertinent to mention here that neither from the receipt nor from any other document, it has been proved that the complainant had disclosed about the contents and the price of the article being sent through the said parcel. So, in the absence of any such declaration, OPs cannot be made liable for the payment of the price of the articles sent through the said parcel. 8. Furthermore, from bare perusal of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, it is apparent that the Postal Office is exempted from any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except if such loss has been caused due to willful act or default on the part of employee of OP. In the present case, the complainant has failed to prove that the loss has occurred due to willful act or default on the part of any employee of OPs. In these circumstances, OPs are not liable to compensate the complainant for the loss occurred due to loss of parcel. 9. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.120/- has been already paid to the complainant. The above said amount has been paid as per the departmental rules. So, the complainant is not entitled for any amount other than the amount already received by him. 10. In these circumstances, the present complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 10th August 2011. (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.772 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 09.08.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 10.08.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
