DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 351 of 7.9.2016

                                      Decided on:               16.4.2018

Baldev Singh, resident of village Saifdipur, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       The Senior Postmaster,  Head Post Office, Patiala.

2.       The Director Foreign Post, New Delhi 110001.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                       Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Jatinder Verma,Advocate,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.G.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate,counsel for opposite parties.

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh.Baldev Singh complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) .

2.        The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant booked a parcel weighing 7410 grams, costing  Rs.34,000/-, vide parcel No.CP143488124IN on 14.9.2015 with OP no.1 to be sent to Sh.Manpreet Singh, SRA # 3/43 Chaisea Ave Broadbech Gold Coast 4218 Australia and paid Rs.2937/-.On checking through net, it was confirmed that the parcel had  reached at Delhi but  was not  delivered to said Sh. Manpreet Singh till today. Various complaints to this effect were made to the OPs but the OPs did not pay any heed to his requests. A legal notice dated 3.5.2015 was also got served upon the OPs, through registered post. In reply to the said notice, the OPs admitted that they had received the parcel but same was not traceable after receiving the same at New Delhi. Even then no action was taken by the OPs. It is stated the OPs neither delivered the parcel to the consignee nor refunded the amount to the complainant. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to refund the charges received from the complainant; to return the parcel or to pay the cost of the parcel to the tune of Rs.34000/-; to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and also to pay cost of the litigation.

3.        On being put to notice, the OPs appeared through counsel and filed the written version. It is admitted that the registered sealed parcel No.CP14348812IN was booked on 14.9.2014 at Patiala Head Office. The weight of parcel at the time of booking was 7410 gms. It is also admitted that the parcel reached at Delhi Foreign Post. The Online web complaint regarding non delivery of parcel was registered at Patiala HO vide No.147001-00899 dated 13.10.2015 being an origin office to Delhi Fgn Post (destination office), the outcomes of which were intimated to the complainant from time to time. The matter was under investigation. The complainant was asked to submit the documents required for compensation of the article (loss) vide letter No.147001-0899/2015-16 dated 26.10.2016. It is stated that nowhere in the complaint it is disclosed that what was the material contained in the parcel. Further no bill of alleged article has been produced on the file to prove its cost. It is stated that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as the article was dispatched from Patiala H.O. on the day of booking i.e. 14.9.2015, the same was sent from Patiala but it is not traceable at Delhi. It is stated that as per the rules, the amount payable to the complainant of the foreign article, as compensation in respect of International parcels in case of loss/total theft/total damage is as under:

For loss/total theft/total damage-40SDR per parcel and 4.50 SDR as per KG

(ISDR=INR 65.8222 for 2009)

After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.        On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to 12 and closed the evidence of the complainant.

           The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Narinder Kumar, Sr. Post Master, Head Office, Patiala alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 and closed the evidence of the OPs.

5.        We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.        Admittedly the complainant booked a parcel on 14.9.2015 with the OP no.1 to send it to the consignee at Australia. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs did not deliver the parcel booked by the complainant to the consignee and has prayed that OPs may be directed to refund the charges received from the complainant at the time of booking of the parcel and also to return the parcel or to pay Rs.34,000/- i.e. the value of the goods contained in the said parcel alongwith  compensation and litigation expenses.

7.     The ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the present complaint is not maintainable because the complainant has not impleaded  the Union of India as OP,  which is a necessary party, in the array of the OPs, In support of his this version, he has placed reliance upon the case Coalmines P.F. Commissioner Vs. Ramesh Chandra Jha, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, as per Order XXVII  Rule 5A of Civil Procedure Code,1908, Govt. shall be  joined as a party in a suit filed against a public officer. He has further argued that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,1898,Exemption from liability for loss,  misdelivery, delay or damage, which reads as under  “ The [Government shall not incur any liability by reason of   misdelivery or  delay 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 willful act or default”.   Since in the present case, there was no allegation that article was lost due to fraudulent and willful act of the officials, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief by way of compensation, for loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to a postal article in a course of its transmission. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of Postmaster Imphal and others Vs. Jamini Devi 1992(CCC)108, wherein, it has been held that, as per Section 6, of the Indian Post Office, Act, 1898, no office of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same.

 8.         In view of the law already laid down by the Hon’ble Superior Courts, in the cases referred to above, we hereby dismiss the present complaint. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:16.4.2018

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER