THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 68 of 2021

 

Mrs. Elsy K. A.(Sebastian),

W/O- HC. M.T. Bhuvanendran,

Type-III/24, CPWD Quarters

Gandhigram, 

P.O. Salbagan, P.S. Airport,

Tripura(W) - 799012. ….....................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Postmaster, 

Post Office Chengannur H.O.,

Alappuzha, Kerala, India- 689121.

 

2. The Post Master, 

Agartala Head Post Office,

Post Office Chowmuhani, 

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

3. The Postmaster,

Salbagan Post Office, 

BSF Campus, Salbagan, 

Agartala, Tripura(W)-799012. …......................Opposite Parties.

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : In person.

  

For the O.P.  :   Sri Biswanath Majumder,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  27.06.2022

 

 

J U D G M E N T

Judgment Delivered by Dr Bindu Pal, Senior Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the act of the OP, Post Office, Complainant Mrs. Elsy K.A(Sebastian) filed this instant complaint petition on 31.08.21 against the Post Office.

2. The brief fact of the case is as that, Complainant is a permanent resident of Gandhigram, Salbagan, Tripura(West), and by profession she’s a teacher. The grievance arises in the mind of the complainant when her parents sent a parcel weighing 10930 grams from Alappuzha, Kerala, bearing article no. EL16454535584IN through speed post for which the Post Office charged an amount of Rs. 1345.20. The value of the parcel was of Rs. 5000 and was dispatched from Kerala on 19th July, 2021. The parcel sent by the parents of the complainant for celebration of the festival Onam which was held on the month of August that year during pandemic. As complainant was unable to track the parcel which was sent by her parents, so she contacted the Customer Care of the Indian Post but unfortunately, she didn’t get any information about the parcel. Again, the complainant enquired about the parcel from the Chengganur Headquarter of India Post on Wednesday 28th July 2021 and there from they got a reply, “Once the parcel is dispatched, their duty is done there”. Rather it was said by them that, “We can’t give any updation of the parcel and it’s the sole responsibility of the post office which received and dispatched the parcel” and they gave the complainant a contact no. of Tiruvalla-RMS. Again, complainant contacted to this number on the same day and from there also they didn’t get any update. The complainant then contacted Salbagan, Post Office on 28th July, 2021 and enquired about the arrival of the parcel. But the postmaster said that they didn’t receive any parcel. As it was the 11th already, the complainant went to the Agartala Head Post Office and enquired about the parcel. The person in charge of the customer care thereon informed the complainant that the system isn’t showing any updates about the parcel. On Thursday 29th July, the complainant once more contacted the Cheggananur Headquarters and didn’t get any response from that side. On 30th July 2021, the complainant received a call from Salbagan Postmaster saying that the Parcel has arrived and asked them to come over to collect the parcel. He also replied that the parcel is in a poor condition. The complainant reached the Post Office and saw that the condition of the parcel was very bad. The complainant denied accepting the said parcel and told the postmaster to send back the parcel. 

 

3. Prayer of the complainant is to consider the above case sympathetically and make arrangements to get the cost of the items that contained in the said speed post parcel and the speed post charges taken by the Chengannur HO, Kerala. 

 

4. Notice was issued upon the OP on 31.08.2021 and accordingly all the OP appeared before the Commission on 01.10.2021. They submitted their written statement on 08.11.2021, brief facts of the OPs case are that, through their written statement, OP Post Office denies and disputes maintainability of the instant complaint petition. As per OP, complainant was unable to prove that the parcel contained items worth about Rs. 5000 and the said parcel was sent for Onam celebration. OP also submitted that there isn’t any triable issue in this matter and prays for dismissal of the petition as there isn’t any deficiency of service caused by the OP. OP further submits that as per Clause 170 of the Indian Post Office Guide Part- I framed under Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 which specifically states that: 

170. Compensation – (1) The head of the Circle may grant the sender, or at his request to the addressee solely as an act of grace, and not in consequence of any legal liability compensation up to a limit of Rs. 50 for the loss of any inland letter, packet or parcel, or its contents or for any damage caused to it in course of transmission by post. 

Further, India offers its customers the service of insurance of the article which is explicitly stated in Clause 30 of India Post Office Act, 1898.

30. Insurance of postal articles- The [Central Government] may, by notification in the [Indian Gazette], direct- (a) that any postal article may, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be insured at the post office at which it’s posted, against the risk of loss or damage in course of transmission by post, and that a receipt therefore shall be granted to the person posting it;

Further, the question of compensation as prayed for by the complainant arises only when the article is insured which is specifically stated in the Clause 33 0f Indian Post Office Act, 1898:

33. Liability in respect of postal articles insured- Subject to such conditions and restrictions as the [Central Government] may, by rule, prescribe [the Central Government] shall be liable to pay compensation, not exceeding the amount for which the postal article has been insured, to the sender thereof for the loss of the postal article or its contents, or for any damage caused to it in course of Transmission by post: Provided that the compensation so payable shall in no case exceed the value of the article lost or the amount of the article lost or the amount of damage caused. 

Further, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, states that:

6.Exemption from Liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery 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, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. 

It was submitted by the OP that the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 986 of 1996 by larger bench held that the law is well settled by a long line of decisions of the English Courts, The Supreme Court of India and The High Courts’ as well as the National Commission itself that the Section- 6 gives complete immunity to the Government and its employee except in the case specified therein. It was submitted that as the alleged article was not insured, hence the sender of the article is entitled to only ex-gratia payment of Rs. 100 or the intrinsic value of the contents of the registered post whichever is less. The petitioner also isn’t the consumer of the services in the eyes of law. Therefore, the complainant isn’t entitled any compensation as prayed for. There is no contractual liability between the complainant and the department of posts. 

 

5. Complainant submitted her examination in chief on 17.01.22 and in her evidence she repeated the same facts as what she stated earlier in her Complaint Petition. The complainant also submitted 6 documents, comprising of 10 sheets with her complaint petition. And the documents were not exhibited. 

 

6. The commission gave several opportunities to the O.P. for submission of evidence, but they failed to adduce any evidence from their end. 

 

 

7. Complainant filed written argument as well as placed her verbal argument on 15.06.2022 and again no step was taken from the side of the O.P. on the date of argument. 

 

8. The issues of the case is:- 

(a) Whether there any deficiency of from the side of the OP. 

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation due to that.

 

9. Points taken into consideration for decision of this case- We went through the complaint petition filed by the complainant, written statement submitted by the OP, evidence and verbal and written argumentplaced by the complainant. When we assemble all these i.e. complaint petition, W.S., evidence, argument etc. we find that one Sri Subin Babu,father of the complaint sent one parcel on 19th July to her daughter Smt. Elsy K.A (Sebastian). The parcel contained some food articles for an amount of Rs.5000 for the celebration of Onam festival. The parcel was sent from Kerala to the complaint through the Salbagan Post office. When the said parcel reached to the complainant, the condition of the parcel was very bad, so the complainant denied receiving the parcel. Complainant filed this instant case due to not being satisfied with the service of the OP. O.P. contested the case and filed W.S. and challenged the maintainability of this case. O.P. categorically mentioned in their W.S. that as per clause 170 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the head of the circle may grant a compensation up to a limit of Rs. 50 to the sender or at his request to the addressee as an act of grace and not in consequence of legal liability. Along with that as per the S.6 of the same Act, the OP will not be liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damages of any postal articles caused to the complainant in course of transmission. More to that Complainant herein would not be considered as the consumer as per the S.7, Sub-section (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. As per this section, “Consumer is a person who hires or avails service for a consideration which has been paid …. , but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose”. As the parcel sent by the parents of the complaintant so consumer herein is the Subin Babu i.e. parents of the complainant. We also evaluate the evidence educed by the complainant and the documents filed by her. We heard argument placed by the complainant. 

 

10. After considering all the aspects of this case and as per decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in R. P. No. 15 of 1997, 1006 of 2001 and 105 of 2002 which elaborately dealt with the provisions of Section -6 of the Post Office Act providing for exemption from the liability for loss, Mis–delivery, delay or damage of any article during transit, and also the question whether there exists any liability while performing statutory service. We are of the opinion that under the aforesaid ground and particularly when we are of the considered view that as the complainant is not a consumer, the instant complaint petition is not maintainable. Hence petition is rejected. 

No cost.

Supply copy to both the parties free of cost.

 

Announced.

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.