Orissa

Debagarh

CC/37/2018

Purnananda Pani, aged 45 years, S/O-Sri Bhagirathi Pani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

16 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

C.C.NO-37/2018

Present-        Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

Purnananda Pani, age 45 years,

S/O-Sri Bhagirathi Pani,

At-Kargil Chowk, Deogarh Ward No-2,

Deogarh Pani Tyres.

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh, Odisha.

Pin-768108.                                                                                                  …  Complainant.

Vrs.

1. The Post Master,

         Deogarh Head Post Office,

         P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh-768108(Orissa).

     2.  The Superintendent of Posts, Sambalpur,

          P.O/P.S/Dist- Sambalpur(Orissa).           

      3.   Head of the Department,

          Amazon Seller(Amazon.in)

           Shamshabad,Hyderabad-500108.                                                 …..O.Ps

Counsels:-

For the Complainant-         Nemo

For the O.P-1 & 2 -              Ms. Shrabani Pradhan (Authorised person)

For the O.P-3-                       None

DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2020, DATE OF ORDER : 16.01.2020

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President-       Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant on dtd. 04.07.2018 has purchased a new Peter England Men’s Solid Slim Fit Formal Shirt through online from the O.P-3(Amazon.in) on payment of Rs.959.00 through ATM cum Debit card vide order no-408-8224102-2803552. As he was dissatisfied with the product, opted to return the same to the O.P-3. On dtd. 09.08.2018 the Complainant returned the article to the sender’s address through O.P-1 by Speed Post vide docket no-E0997088210N IVR: 6979997088210. According to the seller in case of return of product, they will refund the price paid, only after he (O.P-3) actually receives the returned article/product. As even after a long time when the article did not reached to the O.P-3, the Complainant made inquiry to the O.P-1 but he could not be able to assign any reason for the unexpected delay. Later on the Complainant made a written request to the O.P-1 to trace out the location but even after three months the Complainant neither received any message from the seller (O.P-3) nor from the O.P1 regarding the receipt of the article. On dtd. 16.05.2019, the Complainant after made inquiry came to know from the O.P-1 that the article/parcel has been received by the O.P-3 on dtd. 16.08.2018 with b/u/r EBN1015225723 in serial no-23/24.  But the O.P-3 till now denying to have received the said article/parcel sent to him by the Complainant.  The Complainant has been harassed by the O.Ps and facing financial loss along with mental pain due to irresponsible and negligent nature of the O.Ps. But according to the O.P-1& 2 the above speed post article was booked at Deogarh Mukhya Dak Ghar on dtd.09.08.2018 for delivery at RGI Airport SO-500108 was dispatched to Sambalpur vide post bag no-EBO000661 and was duly entered. On the written complaint of the Complainant a CCC web complaint was registered and correspondence has been made by O.P-1 in CCC web Portal. According to the O.P-1 information is available up to NSH Hyderabad and further information about delivery of the article to the O.P-3 is not available as per tracking in the departmental website and in the CCC Web portal. But the O.P-1 made letter communication to SPOs Hyderabad South East Division, speed post Manager NSH Hyderabad, SPO Hyderabad GPO Division, SPM RGI Airport SO,SPM Samshabad SO, Hyderabad on dtd.19.12.2018 regarding the status of the article. Later on Hyderabad NSH with the help of speed post manifest supplied by e-commerce Telengana Circle confirmed that, on dtd. 16.08.2018 the above said article is delivered to the Amazon seller Services.  The O.P-1 claims that as the article has been booked and dispatched by him on the same day there is no fault/delay from the booking end. According to the O.P-1 & 2, the complaint has been dealt with timely manner and available information has been shared to the Complainant. But the O.P-1 office has received the reply from Hyderabad speed post centre on dtd. 29.12.2018 about the delivery of the said article to Amazon. Again according to the O.P-1 & 2, sec-6 of Indian Post Office Act-1998 exempts the postal department from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damages to any postal articles in course of transmission by post, hence the Govt. shall not incurred loss for the above noted reasons.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and material available on records we inferred that the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps as he has made an online purchase from the O.P-3 and made payment on COD(Cash On Delivery). Here the O.P-1 & 2 cannot take shelter of Section 6 of the Post Office Act because in the present case the delay of speed post was not occurred due to loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post; rather due to acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc., on their part in discharge of their officials duties. Not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1 & 2.  The speed post is a premium business service of the department for which there is a higher tariff. The articles are to be delivered within a specified period. There appears to be no monitoring of the receipt/ dispatch and delivery of the speed post articles by post office concerned or any other authority.  It is for the O.P-1 & 2 to render the service for their premium product of speed post. Hence, there is a clear cut deficiency of service on their part for its omissions and commissions in non-informing the Complainant about the delivery of the article in time. Thereafter they have also not given any explanation as to why they did not monitor the speed post articles' receipt and dispatch. Further, they have failed to take any corrective action on their own. This matter has been well established in the case of Post Office & Anr. vs Akhilesh Grover decided on 6^th October, 2017 by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Again the complainant informed the O.P-3 about the wrong product received from the O.P-3 and opted to return the article and requested him( O.P-3) for refund of his money, the Complainant received information from the O.P-3 to return the wrong product back to them as per the given address so that they could process full refund of the order. But after confirmation received from the O.P-1& 2 regarding the receipt of the article by the O.P-3, he remained silent and the Complainant has not received the refund amount as promised by the O.P-3. Further Complainant contacted the O.P-3 regarding the delay in refund but there was no reply from him (O.P-3). However, it is pertinent to note that, O.P-3 is a renowned online Shopping Hub and by looking into the goodwill of the O.P-3 company and various advertisements given in different website, the customers like Complainant will be lured by such advertisement and get attracted and above all by believing that Amazon company as its goodwill the Complainant by availing the product from the O.P-3, placed the order. It is the duty of the O.P-3 company not to deceive the customers like Complainant and there should be value for money in E-commerce at the door step of the customers. The O.P-3 also by taking their consideration amount through selling and purchasing of the goods to the customers like Complainant, hence business activities of O.P-3 also come under the domain of the   As per the evidence placed on record till today the Complainant did not get the refund of the amount. Further on perusal of the record, it is evident that Complainant send back the package of article for refund of the amount  and  from the proof of delivery, it is evident that the return product is confirmed by the O.P-1& 2 but the O.P-3 did not honour the legitimate claim of the Complainant. It shows that doing E-commerce business is threatened to the hard earned money of the customers like Complainant, the non-retuning the amount to the complainant it amounts to not only Deficiency in Service but also it is Unfair Trade Practice adopted by the O.P-3. The above matter has been well established in a case of “Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Love Kumar Sahu & Anr”, decided on 23^rd  May, 2018 by the Hon’ble “State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh State”. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to get the amount which was paid by him to the O.P-3. In our view and as per the evidence available on record we reached to conclusion that, the O.Ps have committed Deficiency in Service u/s-2(1)(g) and Unfair Trade Practice u/s-2(1)(r) with the Complainant according to the Consumer Protection Act-1986. Hence we order as under:

ORDER

The Complaint Petition is allowed. Under the circumstances we hereby direct the O.P-1& 2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs1,000/- towards compensation for providing delayed information to the Complainant about the delivery of article. The O.P-3 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.959.00 to the Complainant towards the price received against the returned article, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. Further just due to the non-action of the O.P-3 in the matter and which made the Complainant to wander from pillar to post, hence the O.P-3 is liable to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) towards Compensation,Rs.2,000/-(Two Thousand) towards mental agony and pain and Rs.1,000/-(One Thousand) towards litigation expenses, which it will meets the ends of justice. All the above direction are to be complied within 30 (Thirty) days from receipt of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.

Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties receiving acknowledgement of the delivery of thereof.

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 16^th day of January, 2020 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

           I      agree,                                            I     agree,

          MEMBER(W).                                    MEMBER.                                          PRESIDENT.

             Dictated and Corrected

              by me.

        PRESIDENT.