Orissa

Jajapur

CC/11/2018

Sammy Sahoo. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master ,Jajpur. - Opp.Party(s)

K.C.Kar,D.C.Das

23 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : JAJPUR : ODISHA .

Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2018.

Date of filing             :-    02.02.2018.

Date of hearing :-   02.12.2022

Date of Order  :-    23.02.2023

Dated the 23^rd day of February 2023.

Sammy Sahoo, W/o:- Purna Chandra Sahoo,

At:- Hadia Colony, P Jageswarpur,

Unit-8, Po/PS/Dist:- Jajpur.                                 .  .  .  .  Complainant.                                                                                                                         

                             Versus.

1. The Post Master, Jajpur,

At/Po/Dist:- Jajpur.

2. Superintendent of Post Offices,

Cuttack North Division,

Cuttack – 753 001 (Odisha).....Opp. Parties.

             

P R E S E N T S.

1.  Mrs. Susmita Mishra,         President,

        2.    Sri Bibekananda Das,       Member (I/c).

 

             Counsels appeared for the parties.                            

For the Complainant        :-       Sri K. C. Kar, Advocate & Associates, 

For the O.P. No.1 & 2       :-       Sri Ajay Kumar Das, Govt. Advocate.

 

J U D G M E N T.

Mrs.  SUSMITA MISHRA, PRESIDENT  :-

            The Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps & seeking the following reliefs :

 

“i) To direct O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees   twenty five thousand) for the cost of the articles contains in the parcel, and

ii)   To direct O.Ps to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) towards mental agony to the complainant.

 

1.               The facts as per the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had send three numbers of Regd. Parcel bearing No.C00445917985 IN – Counter No.1/O.P. Code-PA1 ; AC0045918107 & ACC0045918098 IN –Counter NO. O.P. Code – PA1) to one Birju Lal, At: MOREH, Ward No. No: 04, MANIPUR, PO/DIST : MANIPUR, PIN-795131 on dt.20.02.2017, 21.02.2017 & 21.02.2017 respectively with Regd. Post through Jajpur Head Office. The cost of the articles contained inside the above three parcels are valued at Rs. 25,000/-.  After inquiring the complainant had came to know that the above three parcels had not delivered to the addressee.  After that the complainant had made a complain to the O.P. No.1 – ‘The Post Master’ Jajpur on 21.02.2017 & 20.02.2017 and also send three mail to the complain section, Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack, North Division, At/Po/Dist:- Cuttack by Regd. Post mail on dt.31.03.2017.  On 23.10.2017, the complainant sends an Advocate Notice to the O.Ps for settlement of the dispute.  In reply, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack North Division, Cuttack, Odisha, has sent a letter of request to book web complaint on dt.25.10.2017.  After that, the complainant sent web complaint along with the particulars as per the requirement of the Postal Department.  But the said web complaint has return on next date as the concerned Dept. intentionally not received.  Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum (Now, known as ‘District Commission’)) for loss & injury due to deficiency in service on the part of the Postal Department.

 

2.               The O.Ps are the “Postal Department, Govt. of Odisha”, filed their written statement opposing the complaint through their Govt. Advocate, JAJPUR.  The O.Ps by filing the written statement /version stated that except some specifically admitted facts, all other averments made in the complaint petition are denied.  It is stated by the O.P. that the Regd. Parcel booked on 20.02.2017 was dispatched to Jajpur Road RMS for further disposal vide Jajpur H.O. Parcel Bag No. CB0002561889 entered in Sl. No.3/3 on the same date & the parcels booked on 21.02.2017 were dispatched to Jajpur Road RMS on the same date vide Jajpur H.O. Parcel Bag No.-CB00002628228 entered in Sl. No.07/07 & Sl. No.06/07 respectively.  It is submitted  by the O.Ps that the articles were booked on the above dates at jajpur H.O., the period for delivery of Business parcels & 2^nd Class mail like Regd. Parcel meant for delivery in other states is 6-7 working days as per the Citizen Charter, issued by the Deptt. of Posts.  It is also stated by the O.Ps that in case of any deficiency in service, as per Grievance Redress Mechanism in the Deptt. of Posts, complaints are to be lodged within 60 days of transaction/availing of service.  It is stated by the O.Ps that three numbers of CCC complaint bearing Complaint No.7533000-3353, 753300-03354 & 753300-03355 against the article Nos. C044917985IN, C0045918107IN & C0045918098IN respectively raised on dt.17.02.2018.  It is also submitted by the O.Ps that there are various conditions laid for sending valuable articles through Insured Post.  It is also admitted by the O.Ps that, out of 3 parcels, 2 Nos. of articles were delivered to the addressee & delivery date of the rest one article is yet to be traced out.  It is also admitted by the O.Ps that now the Deptt. of Posts, is going through various technological changes for better & transparent service for the people & the movement of articles can be tracked at India Post Official website.

 

3.               We have heard the Counsels for both the parties & after perusal of the complaint petition, written versions of the O.Ps & documents filed by the parties, the following issues are framed :-

 

1. Whether the present complaint is barred by the period

of limitation ?

2.  Whether the O.Ps are actually deficient in providing its

                                       Services to the complainant or not ?

3.  Whether the O.Ps are entitled to protection

U/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 ?

4.  What relief the complainant is entitled to get ?

       Issue No. 1 :-

            The complainant had sent the above three Nos. of Regd. Parcel to one Birju Lal, At:- Moreh, Ward No. 04, Manipur, At/Po/Dist:- Manipur, Pin – 795131 on 20.02.2017 & 21.02.2017 respectively through Regd. Post, at Jajpur H.O. (Xerox copy of Annexure-7/C  attached).  It is submitted by the complainant that on 23.10.2017 one Advocate Notice was issued to the O.Ps regarding the settlement of the dispute due to non-delivery of parcels in time.

             On the other hand, it is admitted by the O.Ps that the complainant sent one Advocate Notice addressed to the O.P.No.1 & O.P. No.2 which has been received at the O.P. No.2 on dt.25.10.2017.  After that, the O.P. No.2 instructed the O.P. No.1 on the same date vide letter No. CR/CD/Misc/2013 with an instruction to book a web complaint which is known as CCC Complaint on 25.10.2017 (Xerox copy of Annexure-R/5 & Annexure-R/6 attached by O.Ps)

            One Web-based Complaint CCC Jajpur H.O) vide Complaint No.755001-00383, Regd. on dt.05.04.2017 made by the complainant (Xerox copy of Annexure-6/C)

            It is sufficient to proved that, there is no delay by the Complainant. Therefore, the present compliant filled by the complainant is within the period of limitation.

            The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2 :-

             As per the written version of the O.Ps in Para-3, it is admitted by the O.Ps that the office of the O.P. No.2 had raised one ticket through HDMS at Center for Excellence in Postal Technology (CEPT), Mysore vide Ticket No. TICN0-00239072/dt.12.04.2018 to find out the last tracking status of the article.  It is also admitted by the O.Ps that on dt.26.04.2017 and 27.01.2017 in the complain number 753300/03353 & 753300-03355, the status of the articles were updated as delivered to the addressee of the articles on dated 02.03.2017 & 10.03.2017 respectively (Xerox copy of Annexure-R/7 &  R/9 attached by the O.Ps & True copy Annexure/ R/2, R/3 submitted by the O.Ps on 21.10.2022) It is also admitted by the O.Ps that in the case of Regd. Parcel No. C0045918107 IN mentioned in CCC Complaint No. 753300-03354 still under inquiry & in this regard, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Manipur Division has been requested to intervene in this case & to update the delivery date early vide this office letter No. CD/CD-02/2018/ dt.03.05.2017 (Xerox copy of Annexure-R/10 attached herewith the written version on dt.23.05.2018).  As per the document filed by the O.Ps on dt.29.07.2019, it is reveals that the 1^st Parcel No. C0045917985IN (Odisha) contains Sl. No.1 in the name of Birju Lal, Moreh W/4, Mob. No.9774330165 was received & signed by the addressee as Birju Lal in English letter on dt. 02.03.2017, Second  Parcel No. C0045918107IN in  contains Sl. No.3 in the name of Birju Lal, Moreh W/4 was received & signed by one ‘Suraj’ on 07.03.2017 & the last parcel No. C0045918098 IN contains Sl. No. 1 in the name of Birju Lal, Moreh W/4 was received & signed by one ‘Suraj’ on 10.03.2017 & the above three documents are maintained as a handwritten documents. (Xerox copy annexed  by O.Ps on 29.07.2019)

            Here, the next issue which arises is whether the O.Ps are actually deficient in providing its services to the complainant or not.  In this regards on perusal of the record & above documents which are submitted before this Commission by the O.Ps, we find that the 2^nd Parcel No. C0045918107 IN & the last Parcel No. C0045918098 IN was received & signed by one stranger namely ‘Suraj’ on dt.07.03.2017 & 10.03.2017 respectively, but we identified that the signature of ‘Suraj’ in both the documents are mis-matched.

            It is further admitted by the O.Ps in their written version that, now the Department is going through various technological changes for better and transparent service for the people and the movement of articles can traced at India post official website.

            Whereas, the learned advocate for the complainant is completely denied & argued that the complainant’s parcels are not received by the said Birju Lal in Moreh, Manipur for which one original Affidavit with its xerox copy through M. Nishar Ansari, Notary, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum (Jharkhand), vide Regd. No. 674/J/dtd.08.11.2019, Govt. of Jharkhand, where the addressee signed in Hindi Language on 10.11.2019. [As per record & documents filed by the complainant, it is evident that one web-based complaint was registered on 05.04.2017, 14:18:06 bearing complaint No. 755001-00383 regarding Regd. Parcel-Non-delivery of Articles vide Transaction details. No. CO045918107 IN on 21.02.2017 made by the complainant which was closed on 05.06.2017 through India Post-Web Based Customer Grievance Handling System (CCC Jajpur H.O.)] (Xerox copy of Annexure-6/C).

            After going through the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that Regd. Parcel was in the custody of the Postal Department and requisite fees was also paid towards consideration by the complainant for its safe delivery, but the O.Ps miserably failed to perform their duties properly and parcel was admittedly delivered to someone else namely ‘Suraj’ instead of the addressee namely ‘Birju Lal’.

            Here, we are of the opinion that it was a fit case for holding a departmental inquiry by the O.Ps prior to filing a consumer complaint by the complainant and to fix the responsibility of the delinquent, but the O.Ps have not produce any ‘action taken report’ to show whether proper procedure was adopted to pin point the delinquent employee.  In the absence of that, it is clearly established that there was a willful default on the part of the O.Ps.

            Hence, the O.Ps have committed gross negligence which amounts to ‘deficiency in service’ for which the O.Ps are liable to pay compensation for mentally agony and harassment undergone in view of the observation of Hon’ble Haryana State C.D.R. Commission in Sub-Post Master, Post Office, Rewari Vs. Vinod Kumar Saxena, (1996) 1 CPR 444 (Haryana CDRC) as follows :

                               “ Mis-delivery – Deficiency in Service :

a money order of Rs.400/- sent by the complainant which was mis-delivered to other than the addressee.  The Haryana State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum awarding Rs.400/- with interest @ 12% to the complainant and dismissed the appeal”.

From the supra discussion, conclusion is drawn that the O.Ps are deficient in their service.  Hence, the issue is answered against the O.Ps.

Issue No. 3 :-

The next oral argument raised by the learned counsel for the O.Ps that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Postal Authorities/Department is exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of a postal article.

Now, the question arise in this regards is that whether the O.Ps are entitled to protection U/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.

In this regards, the complainant also filed a Memo of Citation along with Written Argument on dt.21.01.2019, as follows :

1. Vishawas Julka Vs. Union of India through Secretary Post, Government of India & Anr., 1999 (3) CPR 253, the Hon’ble State C.D.R. Commission, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, has laid down the law that Section 6 Indian Post Office Act, 1898-application for a Speed Post on 24.11.1997 reached the addressed on 01.12.1997. -Speed Post is also covered under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and Govt. will not incur any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery or delay of or damage to any such article unless the same was fraudulent or willful act or default.”
2. Post Master, Ranipel H.O. & Anr Vs. shri N.B. Janakiraman, 2001 (3) CPR 189 (N.C.) –  In this case, the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has laid down the law that “Section 48 (C)-Telegraphic Money Order-of Indian Post Office Act does not give blank immunity to  Postal Authority but if there is a fraud or willful act or default on the part of any officer of post office it will be liable”.

             In this regard, the following are being quoted for ready reference :

     “Statement of objects and Reasons for the Act, 1898 :

            The present Bill proposes to confer the protection and powers which have been  found necessary in the extension and increase of Postal Business.  It includes within its scope postal insurance, the value payable post, and the Post Office Money order System, and declares and limits the liability of Government in respect of these matters.

Section 6 of the Act, 1898 reproduced here :

                   Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delayl 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 willful act or default.”

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) is a comprehensive enactment for speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for better protection of the interests of the consumers.  Having paid for the services, the complainant was a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Sec2 (7)(ii) of the Act, 2019 [Sec.2(i)(d)(ii) of the Act, 1986].

            Section 6 does not intend to provide an unfettered license to the officials of the Postal Department for inefficiency & mis-management or to cause loss & injury to its ‘consumer or consumers’.  

            In the modern computerized world, the Postal Authorities are supposed to act with precision & efficiency.  Only then, the Post Office will survive.  It is a proven & admitted fact that the complainant sent three Parcels containing Sarees worth Rs. 21,900/- & Rs. 4,250/- respectively (Xerox copy of Annexure-8/C) by Regd. Post from Jajpur H.O. to Moreh, Manipur.  It was found that two parcels are delivered to some ‘Suraj’ instead of the addressee out of the above said three parcels are valued at Rs.25,000/-, by the Postal Department.  The signature of the receiver namely ‘Suraj’ in these parcels are mis-matched.  So, it clearly falls within the meaning of “deficiency in service” U/s 2 (i)(g) & U/s 2 (i)(o) of the Act, 1986. [Now U/s 2 (ii) & U/s 2 (42) of the C.P. Act, 2019].

            A contention has been made in Para-4 of the written version of the O.Ps that :

“ 4. In reply to the averments made in Para-3, it is humbly submitted that there are various conditions laid for sending valuable articles through Insured Post.  As per Rule 173 of Post Office Guide Part-1 (Annexure-R/11), the insurance covers all risks in course of transmission by post and in such case, responsibility lies for payment of compensation not exceeding the amount for which the article has been insured.    

                   x  x  x  x                x  x  x  x                x  x  x  x

Since the content of the parcel was a valuable upto Rs.25,000/- as stated by the petitioner, it should have been sent through other services provided by the Department of Posts, i.e. Insured Post.”

            It cannot be that the exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage provided U/s 6 envisages that the exemption is so all encompassing & so un questionable that a “Consumer”, who pays for the services to send a parcel through Regd. Post/Parcels through the Postal Department, has send his/her consignment either by taking prior insurance to cover ‘Postal Perils’ or to send it at his/her own risk and cost with the Postal Department being immune to any liability or accountability, whatsoever.  Such contention is absurd on the fact of it (Xerox copy of Annexure-R/11 &  R-12, Point No. 184 - Cases in which Insurance is compulsory).

            We have considered the rival contentions & perused the record and documents therein, it is our opinion that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which provides for exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of a postal articles will not be applicable to the present case.  Because, it becomes clear that it is a case of mis-delivery of the registered article due to willful act or default on the part of the O.Ps & in such circumstances, as per provision of Section 6 of the Act,  1898, the O.Ps are liable & responsible for such mis-delivery caused the same by their willful act or default.  Whereas, Sec. 48 (C) of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is also not applicable in the present case because Sec. 48 of the Act, 1898 specifically relating to the provision of “Exemption from liability in respect of Money orders” only.

            In the light of the Judgment in case of Post Master, Head Post Office Vs. Pallani Fortyal, II (2003) CPJ 370 (Uttarakhand) :

“ Postal Service –Registered Letter not delivered to addressee -

‘ Deficiency in service’- Compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with cost of Rs. 1,500/-was awarded.  On appeal held that as registered letter could not be traced during the period of four years willful default will be presumed and as compensation awarded by Forum was excessive, therefore complainant was entitled to actual loss of Rs. 1,277/- & compensation of Rs. 6,000/- for harassment.”

            We deem it appropriate to refer to the another Judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Presidency Post Master Vs. D.U. Shankar Rao 1993 (2) CPJ 141 (N.C.) –

“ National Commission referred to the provision of Sec. 3 of the C.P. Act, 1986 and observed that :

Consumer Protection Act provided an additional remedy for consumers, but if the remedy is barred under any other Act, it cannot grant any relief  …            …       …,   A reading of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act would shows that the protection U/s 6 is not absolute   …           …    …,   where the consumer is in a position to establish fraud, willful act or default,  it would be possible for consumers to lodge complaint notwithstanding Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act.” [Now, U/s 100 of the C.P. Act, 2019]

            Thus, this a fit case that the O.Ps were not exempted under the provision of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, where the willful act or default is proved by the complainant.

            Accordingly, the Issue No.3 is against the O.Ps.

Issue No. 4 .

As per record, it is admitted by the O.Ps that out of 3 articles, 2 Nos. of articles were already delivered to the addressee and delivery date of the rest-one article is yet to be traced out.  In later period, the O.Ps are submitted that the above three parcels were delivered to the addressee on dtd. 02.03.2017, 07.03.2017 & 10.03.2017 respectively (Xerox copy of document submitted by O.Ps  on dtd.29.07.2019 & 21.10.2022 respectively). Whereas the documents of particulars contained in above three parcels show that, the parcels are contained some Sarees (Xerox copy of Annexure-8/C) and postal receipts bearing No: A COO45917985IN / wt. 4370 gm / amount of postal charge of Rs. 164.00/-, Postal receipt bearing No: A C COO45918107IN / wt. 3810 gm / Postal charge of Rs. 148.00/- and postal receipt No: A COO45918098IN / wt. 3380 gm / Postal charge of                Rs. 132.00/- (Xerox copy of Annexture-7/C).

As per the Issue No.2, the O.Ps are deficient in their service to the complainant, accordingly the complainant is entitled to relief.

Hence, the order.

 

                             O R D E R.

 So, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that it is a clear case of gross deficiency in service & negligence on the part of the O.Ps.  Therefore, there is merit in this complaint which is hereby accepted.

Hence, the O.Ps are directed as under :-

1. To pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to the complainant towards the value of the goods sent through Registered Post ; and
2. To pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) as compensation for mental agony & harassment caused to the complainant.

This order be complied with by the O.Ps within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which it shall made the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sl. No. (i) & ( ii)  above, with interest @ 9% per annum over this amount from the date of default till its payment and also the complainant is at liberty to file Execution Proceeding  U/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The consumer complaint is allowed on contest, but no order as to costs for this stage of litigation.

Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.

            Judgment pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23^rd day of February 2023.