COMPLAINT FILED ON: 02.12.2009
DISPOSED ON:06.08.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
6th DAY OF AUGUST-2011
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT No.2837/2009
Complainant OPPOSITE PARTIES | Mr.Rajesh (Nijaguna)S/o Kempaiah, Aged about 26 years, No.110/1, 1st Main, 1st Cross, S.L.Layout, B.S.K., 3rd Stage, Bangalore-560 085. Advocate: Sri.G.Ravikumar V/s. 1. The Manager, Speed Post Concentration Centre, GPO.Ambedkar Veedi, Bangalore-560 001. 2. The Sub-Post Master, SBM Colony, Bangalore-560 050. |
| Advocate: Sri.A.N.Gangadharaiah, |
O R D E R S
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps.) to pay sum of Rs.33,869/- being the cost of the mobile sent through speed post article Rs.20,000/- towards damages and Rs.1,000/- towards legal notice charges in all Rs.54,869/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:
The complainant was working as a Sales Executive in the Mobile Store at No.114, Shop No.61, Kempegowda Maharaja Complex, K.G.Road, Bangalore-560 009 one N.V.Suresh had purchased a mobile worth of Rs.33,869/- on 26.01.2008 and the said N.V.Suresh had given the said mobile for service in Sri.Sai Mobile, G.33-31, Nokia Care, Yelameli Complex, Gurukul Road, Bijapur from there it was sent to the mobile store for service. Subsequent to the service of the said mobile, complainant was given the job of sending the said mobile to the above said Nokia care at Bijapur. The complainant has send the complainant through a speed Post Parcel on 18.02.2009, addressed to one Shivanand Yarnal, Bijapur, from where the said mobile was to be delivered to N.V.Suresh through the 2nd OP’s Branch i.e., S.B.M. Colony Post Office, Bangalore. The said speed post parcel contained the said mobile worth of Rs.33,869/-. The said speed post was neither delivered nor returned back to the sender i.e., the complainant. The complainant made representation with OP2 dt.25.02.2009 and further the sub-post master concern after looking into the register book maintained, informed the complainant that the said speed post parcel had been dispatched from their office to GPO, speed post concentration centre the OP1 centre where the same shall be sent to Bijapur and he asked the complainant to wait for another one week’s time. The complainant had made representation on 26.03.2009 and enquired regarding the said parcel and the OP2 were not in a position to answer to the complainant so as to what happened to the parcel, to the utter surprise of the complainant, the said parcel has neither received by OP2, nor dispatched from the office of the 2nd OP, from where the complainant had sent the parcel to Bijapur. Even after making several representations to OPs, there was any response nor proper intimation regarding eh speed post parcel. The complainant was made to run from pillar to post to know the information from the offices of the OPs in respect of the speed post parcel. For the mistake of the OPs, it created a suspicious not only mind of the superiors of the complainant, and resulted not only rusticating the complainant from the job but also forced him to pay the entire price of the mobile of a sum of Rs.33,869/- to the party. The complainant has settled the entire cost of the mobile despite loosing his job. For the Legal notice dt.06.10.2009, OP1 sent reply letter dt.21.10.2009 stating that the speed post article sent by the complainant has not been traceable and in this regard they have also sent a cheque for Rs.90/-as compensation for the loss of article. OPs have neglected to Honour the genuine claim of the complainant, they are liable to pay the amount as claimed above.
3. On appearance, the OPs have filed version admitting that the complainant had sent one speed post article on 18.02.2009 . But OPs were not aware of contents of the speed post parcel. At the time of booking the speed post article, the contents of the speed post article is not known unless declared by the customer. The complainant never disclosed about the contents of the speed post article, hence OPs were not aware of the allegations made therein. The speed post article booked on 18.02.2009 from 2nd OP office was received at the speed post concentration centre at GPO. Both the representations dt.25.02.2009 and 26.03.2009 were received about the non-delivery of the article. The same were enquired into and after enquiry it was revealed that the disposal of the said speed post article could not be traced and hence it is treated as lost in transit. The said fact has been intimated to the complainant by letter dt.16.03.2009. The complainant informed to claim the eligible compensation for the loss of the speed post article. The complainant had not insured the speed post article and as per the Gazette Notification No.GSR 40(E) dt.21.01.1999, incase of loss of speed post article the postal departments liability is to pay compensation double the amount of speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- which ever is less. Further, in terms of Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the department of post cannot be held liable for loss, mis-delivery or damage to any postal article, except to the extent the liability undertaken in express terms by the central government. The legal notice was replied suitably OPs are not liable to pay any compensation or any amount claimed by the complainant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. The Manager (OPS and CS) General Post Office, Bangalore filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version. Both the parties filed written arguments. Arguments heard.
5. Points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved
the deficiency in service on the part of
the OPs?
Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant is
entitled for the reliefs now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
6. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:- Affirmative.
Point No.2:-Affirmative in part.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
It is not in dispute that the complainant had sent a speed post parcel on 18.02.2009 through OP2 addressed to one Shivanand Yarnal, Sri.Sai Mobile G-33-32, Nokia Care, Yelameli Complex, Gurukul Road, Bijapur and the said speed post parcel was not delivered to the addressee. For the legal notice dt.06.10.2009, OPs replied through their letter dt.21.10.2009 stating that the said speed post article has been received at speed post center, Bangalore on 18.02.2009 but further disposal of the said S.P.A. is not traceable and hence it is treated as lost in transit and the same has been communicated to the complainant on 16.03.2009. Further, it is stated that as per the departmental rulings, the complainant is eligible for compensation of double the speed post charges paid for the loss of the speed post article and a cheque amounting to Rs.90/- being the refund of postage towards the speed post charges has been sent vide this office letter dt.20.10.2009. It is also stated that if any valuable item has to be sent through speed post, the same should have been insured in which case the total insured value of the item will be refunded. In the version filed OPs admits that the speed article was not traced hence it is treated as lost in the transit.
7. The complainant was working as a Sales Executive in the mobile store at No.114 shop No.61 Kempegowda Maharaja Complex, K.G.Road, Bangalore. One N.V.Suresh had purchased a mobile worth of Rs.33,869/- dt.26.01.2008 from the mobile store were this complainant was working. The said M.V.Suresh had given the said mobile for the service in Sri.Sai Mobile Nokia Care, Bijapur from there it was sent to the mobile store for service. After the service complainant was given the job of sending the said mobile to the above said Nokia Care at Bijapur. Accordingly, the complainant had sent to the said mobile through the speed post parcel on 18.02.2009. The invoice produced reveals that the total costs of the said mobile including taxes was Rs.3,869/-. When the speed post parcel containing mobile was neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the complainant, the complainant has made representation on 25.02.2009 as per document No.3 to Op2 and on 26.03.2009 as per document No.4 to the Manager speed post center, Bangaloe and further representation on 26.03.2009 to OP2. On 23.09.2009 further representation was made to OP2 to verify and inform regarding the speed post article. From the affidavit evidence of the complainant and complaint averments it becomes clear that the speed post parcel contained mobile set worth of Rs.33,869/-. Merely because the complainant has not declared the contents of the parcel and its value and has not insured the same, OPs cannot avoid the liability to make good of the loss suffered by the complainant. At the time of accepting the parcel nothing prevented OPs insisting complainant to declare the contents of the parcel and its value and also to insure the same. OPs have not taken such steps and now it is not open for them to set up such a defence to wash off their hands. Because of the gross negligence of the OPs in not delivering the parcel, the complainant has suffered loosing his job and he was made to pay the entire cost of mobile by his employer mobile store. Document No.6 is the letter issued by the employer of the complainant, the mobile store forfeiting his monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- towards the part of the mobile cost and demanding to pay the rest of the amount of Rs.27,869/- and further he was also rusticated from the job.
8. The learned Advocate for OPs vehemently argued that as per the Gazette Notification No.GSR 40 (E) dt.21.01.1999, in case of loss of speed post article the Postal Departments liability is to pay compensation double the amount of speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. The complainant is entitled to claim the compensation to that extent. Further, it is contended that Under Section-06 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the Department of post cannot be held liable for loss, Mis-delivery or damage to any postal article, except to the extent the liability undertaken in express terms by the Central Government. The complainant was entitled for Rs.90/- as the double the amount of postal charges paid for the postal parcel and the cheque for the said amount was sent through letter dt.20.10.2009 as shown in the reply letter to the legal notice. In our view, the OPs cannot take shelter Under Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 for the reason that the Act does not protect the postal authorities and its employees against wilful act or gross negligence. The non-delivery of the speed post parcel by OPs is nothing but a gross negligence of the employees of the postal authorities which can be teemed as wilful acts committed by them or as a default. Further, in 2010 CTJ 22(CP)(NCDRC) , Speed Post Customer Care Centre, Kolkata and others V/s Niranjan Sahoo, wherein a speed post letters sent to the complainant were delivered belatedly compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded for the loss suffered and Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony in addition litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- in all Rs.1,10,000/-. At para15 of the Judgement it is observed:
The Postal Authorities also tried to take shelter under rules66-B of the Indian Post Office (first amendment)Rules 1999 which provides that in case of delay in delivery of domestic 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 and in the event of loss of domestic speed post articles or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less.
Further at Para-16 it is observed:
We are of the opinion that the Govt. of India framed these rules to provide compensation to the consumers when a delay or damage etc is caused due to causes beyond control of the authorities and we presume that these rules were not at all framed to provide immunity to the defaulting and negligent officials against their faults. Therefore, these rules also provide no protection to the Postal Authorities in the instant cases.
The observations made above are aptly applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore the contentions of Ops that the maximum compensation payable is of Rs.90/- being the double the postal charges paid, for the loss of speed post article cannot be accepted.
In III (2008) CPJ 300. Sub-postmaster, Head Post Office, Ilkal V/s Vital, The Hon’ble State Commission confirmed the Order of the District Forum awarding compensation of Rs.27,600/- being the value missing sarees. In the said 12 sarees were missing which were sent through Postal Department. At Para-4 of the judgment it was observed that “if the contents of the parcel were not disclosed by the complainant, it was open for the OP to insist the complainant to disclose the same. In the instant case, in such effort has been made by the OP. Further there is a duty cast upon the postal department to deliver the consignment to the consignee in its original form without causing any damage to the consignment, having accepted the consignment after collecting the required parcel charges”. Further, it was also observed that “since the parcel was in the custody of the Postal Department, the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that some postal staff have removed the sarees from the parcel”. Thus the contention of the OP in that case that the maximum compensation that is payable by the Postal Department for a parcel is Rs.500/- as per the Circular governing sending of parcels, if the contents of the parcel are not disclosed by the sender the maximum compensation payable is Rs.500/- was not accepted. The Act of OPs in not delivering the parcel to address amounts to deficiency in service.
9. In view of the above observations of the Hon’ble State Commission and taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice by awarding total compensation of Rs.50,000/- which includes the costs of the mobile and mental agony and hardship suffered, along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
Order pronounced in open Forum (vide separate order)
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
The OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- compensation to the complainant with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- within 4 weeks from the date of this Order.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs:
