1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that his daughter Poojarani Bhoi, who is working at Bangalore had sent one Mi Max Silver 32 G handset, IMEI No.861067032785500 worth Rs.14, 999/- and a Silk Saree worth Rs.4500/- through OP.1 by Speed Post(SP) vide No. EK 423885535IN dt.10.2.2017 weighing 560 Gms on payment of Rs.118/- towards SP charges in the name of the complainant to be reached at Jeypore.  The SP article did not reach to the consignee by the end of February and on complaint to OP.1 it advised to contact destination Post Office.  As the destination post office (OP.3) did not listen, the complainant made a written complaint but the said OP.3 instead of receiving the complaint, advised to search the article through their website. On going through the website, the complainant found that the parcel has been lost at NSH, Berhampur on 14.2.2017.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.14, 990/- towards cost of the handset and Rs.4500/- towards cost of Saree with interest @ 12% p.a. from 10.02.2017 and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     In spite of valid notice, the Ops 1 & 2 neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner.  The Op No.3 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about booking of SP parcel on 10.2.2017 at Bangalore to be delivered to the complainant at Jeypore and they have received Rs.118/- towards SP charges.  It is contended that the OP.3 is not aware of the contents in the said Speed Post and the consignor should have insured the parcel at the time of booking as provided under the Post Office Act.  The OP further contended that u/s.6 of Indian Post Office Act, the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to the postal article in course of transaction by post unless it has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act of default.  It is also further contended that stamps affixed for booking the article is for augmentation of Govt. revenue and there is no contract entered into between the sender and the post office while booking the parcel.  The OP also further contended that the cosigner is entitled only double the charge of SP charge i.e. only Rs.236/- towards loss of article as prescribed by the Government of India.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the complainant as well as his A/R at length and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, SP article sent by the daughter of the complainant from Bangalore through OP.1 on 10.2.17 weighing 560 gms Vide SP No. EK 423885535 and payment of Rs.118/- towards postal charges in the name of the complainant is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that due to non-reaching of SP article, the sender approached OP.1 who advised to approach OP.3.  The OP No.3 did not receive written complaint from the complainant and advised to go through Indiapost.gov.in website and the complainant from the website could know that the article has been lost after reaching NSH, Berhampur (OP.2).

5.                     The OP.3 in his counter stated that the complainant is not their consumer and hence not entitled for any relief.  It is seen that the daughter of the complainant has sent the article through Posts in the name of her father on payment of consideration.  The complainant was to receive the parcel at Jeypore.  As such the complainant is the beneficiary user of services extended by the Ops in this case.  On receipt of article in good condition, the complainant definitely will certify the quality of service availed from the Ops and on his certificate only, the contract between the parties concludes.  Hence the complainant is a consumer of the Ops and competent to file and prosecute complaint under the provisions of C. P. Act.

6.                     The OP.3 stated in his counter that the sender should have insured the article at the time of booking.  The postal department with innovative idea has introduced SP system of service with some extra charges for the safe and secured delivery of articles within a reasonable time, which were not possible earlier in case of other mode of delivery.  When the consumers adopt the system, the Ops further insisting the insurance to the article received by them.  We feel, now the OP-3 is singing in different tone, when the SP article of the complainant was misplaced from their custody.  However, insurance is an option which depends upon the customers to choose.  In the above circumstances, it was not compulsory on the part of a customer to insure his article when he particularly preferred SP facilities extended by the Ops.

7.                     The OP.3 further stated that as per Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act, no Post Office shall incur any liability for loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transaction by post unless it has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act of default.  Now it is to be ascertained as to in which circumstances the parcel was lost.  It is seen from the record that the SP article was reached at OP.2 post office on 14.2.2017 and no onward transmission has been made by the said post office.  The OP.3 has not mentioned about the reason under which the parcel was lost at Berhampur when they have received the parcel at their point with good condition.  In absence of counter and participation of OP.2 in this proceeding, we lost opportunity to know anything from it and hence the allegation against it remained unchallenged.   Further in absence of any specific reason for loss of parcel at Berhampur, we have no other option but to hold that the parcel was lost because of willful act of default by OP No.2.  The officer in charge of said article is solely responsible for the loss as because for his willful default and fraudulent activity, the article could not be traced out even later on.  Involvement of other staff member in missing the article at the post office premises cannot be ignored.   The OP.2 is to find out the faulty officer and recover the loss from him with procedure.

8.                     The OP.3 relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2011 CJ 695 (NC) in support of their case.  We have gone through that judgment and found that, the reason for loss in transit has been clearly mentioned.  The article was lost due to short landing certificate issued by Indian Airlines and the Hon’ble Commission hold that Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act is applicable to that case.  But in the present case in hand, no such reason for loss has been advanced by any of the OPs.  Hence the ratio of above relied case is not applicable to the present case in hand.

9.                     We have already held that due to negligent act of OP.2 the parcel was lost.  For such inaction of the OP, the complainant as well as sender must have suffered some mental agony and have come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which the complainant is entitled for some compensation and cost.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost.  The complainant has filed copy of invoice of articles so purchased.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.2 is directed to pay Rs.14, 999/- towards cost of handset and Rs.4500/- towards cost of Saree with interest @ 12% p.a. from 10.2.2017 and to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)