DATE OF FILING : 17.02.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 30.03.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 12.02.2016.
Sri Samir Ranjan Dey,
son of late Rajeswar Dey,
11/5, Kedar Bhattacharjee Lane,
Howrah 711104 and
also office at c/o. Eastern Filter Mfg. Co.
60/6, Panchanantala Road,
Howrah 711101…. …………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The Senior Post Master,
Howrah Head Post Office,
2, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Howrah – 711101.
2. The SSPOS,
Howrah Division, Kadamtalla,
Howrah 711101.
3. The Assistant Director of
Postal Services ( P G ),
office of the Chief Post Master General West Bengal Circle,
Kolkata 700012.
4. The Head Post Master,
Office of Bihupuria S.O. North Lakhimpur, P.O. Bihupuria,
PIN 784161. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the petitioner, Samir Ranjan Dey, against the Senior Post Master, Howrah Head Post Office, and three others, praying for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment both mentally and financially and directing the o.ps. to deliver the said parcel to the petitioner or refund the value of the parcel amounting to Rs. 22,560/- including the service charges.
- The case of the petitioner is that he sent a registered post parcel on 30.09.2014 through o.p. no. 1 containing articles amounting to Rs. 22,380/- addressed to Sri Sisir Ranjan Dey, c/o. Matri Medical, P.O. Bihupuria, District North Lkhimpur, Pin 784161, Assam, and the o.p. no. 1 issued postal receipt to the petitioner. The parcel was not received by the addressee and the petitioner enquired about the same on 13.10.2014 and 14.10.2014 and the o.p. no. 2 was also informed and on 15.10.2014 a complaint was lodged to the o.p. no. 1. On 21.10.2014 and 08.11.2014 the petitioner wrote letters to the o.p. no. 1 and informed that no parcel was received as yet by the addressee and requested him to investigate the matter and arrange for delivery of parcel within 7 days. The copy of this letter also sent to o.p. nos. 2 & 3 and in reply to the same on 20.11.2014 the o.p. no. 3 told the o.p. no. 2 to enquire the matter. But finding no alternative lastly the petitioner filed this complaint before this Forum through Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Howrah Regional Office, Howrah.
- The o.ps. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that there is no provision for payment of compensation in case of registered article and only ex gratia compensation is admissible and compensation to be given up to Rs. 100/- for loss of any inland letter packet or parcel. It is laid down in the provision that Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of loss or mis delivery or delay or damage of the postal article. Our NCDRC also decided that the service rendered by the post office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. They further submitted that by establishing the post offices and running the postal services, the Central Government performed a government function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with sender of the article. The claim is not admissible as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Thus the claim being a false one be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner, Samir Ranjan Dey, filed affidavit and also filed documents being the postal receipt and others showing that he sent a parcel on 30.09.2014 and he also filed xerox copies of some cash memos showing purchase of same garments from different places including Bazar Kolkata and other stales. The o.p. submitted before the Forum that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Actexemption are given in respect of liability of loss, mis delivery, delay and damaged stating clear that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of any loss, mis delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may be in expressed term be undertaken by the Central Government and no officer also shall incur any liability in such case.
6. This Forum heard the ld. counsel for the petitioner as well as the o.p. while the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he sent the registered parcel which was not delivered and the parcel containing articles must be redelivered to him by the o.p., Post Department or he would be compensated by paying the prices of the goods. Ld. Counsel for the o.p. submitted that the parcel was not an insured one and also he referred to a judgment of our National Commission wherein opined that the services rendered by post offices are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability and so the post offices cannot be equated with a common carrier. In the instant case also the petitioner sent the parcel by registered post but keeping in mind the decision of NCDRC as well as the provision of law as laid down U/S 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act it is opined by this Forum that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for.
In the result, the claim case fails.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 70 of 2015 ( HDF 70 of 2015 ) be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
