O R D E R
(By Sri. Ganesh Jadhav, President)
1. THIS IS A COMPLAINT FILED U/SEC.12 OF Consumer Protection ACT, 1986.
2. The facts set out in the complaint, in brief, are that the complainant applied for pass port with opposite Party No. 2 through the local office of passport Sevakendra, Nizamabad on 20-01-2012 by paying Rs. 1,000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) and the Opposite Party No. 2 Office at Nizamabad gave acknowledgment letter No. EN 615778359 in and file No. HY 4061360887912. As there was no response, the complainant gave written complaint to the OP.No.2 on 5-7-2012 mentioning the detailed facts. The OP.No.1 gave a letter dated 6-7-2012 stating non delivery of article of speed post and enquiry is going on to which as there was no information or intimation, complainant again gave an application under RTI Act to OP. No. 1 by giving full details of Original Pass Port sent by OP No.2 to OP.No.1 on 30-04-2012 and on receiving it the OP. No. 1 gave a reply to it dated 8-8-2012 stating that the article was lost while in transit and also assured that if it traced out it will be returned by office, but as on this date no out come has comeout, which compelled to seek justice before the Forum.
It is alleged that due to negligent act of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant suffered a huge loss and lost golden opportunity, from going overseas/abroad, as it is being a “Passport” which is the Prime document and one can imagine how it has become costly affair and task to get it in time. Because of improper services on the part of Opposite Parties the complainant suffered with mental agony, physical strain and future loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- approximately and the concerned may be made liable to pay the same with substituted, “ New Pass port”. Therefore it is prayed to direct the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and to pay the cost of the complaint and with a direction for issuance of new pass port, any other relief or reliefs which this Forum deems fit.
3. The Opposite Party No. 1 filed its counter denying all the material allegations of facts contained in the complaint and stated that the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts, as such deserves to be dismissed in limini. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations leveled against this Op as false.
It is stated that the complaint discloses no deficiency of service, attributable to this Opposite Party and consequently no cause of action has accrued to the complaint.
Further it is stated that on 06-07-2012 the complainant has given a representation alleging that the passport which was dispatched from passport Office Hyderabad to him vide Speed Post Article NO. En 6157783591N dated 30-04-2012 was not received by him and immediately after the receipt of the representation from the complainant, this Opposite Party No. 1 made enquiries and perused the records and it was noticed that the speed post Article bearing No. En 6155778359N dated 30-04-2012 was dispatched from Secunderabad HO addressed to the complainant was received at Nizamabad HO on 02-05-2012 and the same day the article was bagged for Hyderabad and the article was received at Hyderabad on 03-05-2012 and the article was lost in transit and it is not traceable. The same fact has been informed to the complainant immediately. Hence it can not be said there is negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. In fact there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite party and the Opposite Party immediate after receipt of the representation has been & is taking all the steps to find out the article. The opposite party is not aware the contents of the speed post article. Hence the complainant is not entitle to claim any damages much less the alleged Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant nor the alleged passport. The Opposite party immediately after receipt of the representation initiated necessary action to trace out the article. There is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. The acts of the Opposite Party is neither amount deficiency in service nor there is a negligence nor it amounts to unfair practice of trade. In fact the acts of the Opposite party is legal and justified and it has acted in accordance with the Provisions in force, and in view of the forgoing facts there is no deficiency and negligence on the part of this Opposite Party and this Opposite Party is never unfair to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to claim any relief against the OP No. 1 on the alleged non receipt of the article nor the OP No. 1 is liable to pay the alleged amount and issuance of the Pass Port. It is stated that the Indian post Office is exempted by Law from all responsibility in the case of loss, mis-delivery or delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post vide clause 84 of Post Office Guide Part-I. Hence the OP is not liable for payment of damages and the alleged passport as claimed by the complainant . As per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act which reads as under.
“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 here in after 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. As per rule 66B of Indian Post Office Rules of 1933, in case of delay or loss of Speed post Article beyond the norms determined by the department of posts from time to time compensation will be provided which shall equal to composite speed post charges paid. It is also provide that in the event of loss of speed post article or loss of contents or damage to the contents compensation shall be double the amount of the composite fee speed post charges paid or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is less”. Hence for the reasons stated herein above the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed. This Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. M. Madan Singh, the Superintendent of Passport Office, Hyderabad filed counter on behalf of OP.No.2 wherein it is stated that his office has followed the procedure laid down in the Pass Port manual and issued the Passport bearing No. K 3181460, dated 20-11-2012 to the complainant. It is further stated that there is no service deficiency from the Regional Passport Office Hyderabad. He prayed to dismiss the complaint against Opposite Party No.2.
5. During enquiry, neither the complainant nor the OP No.1 adduced any evidence either oral or documentary on their behalf though sufficient and reasonable time granted to them. The Opposite Party No. 2 remaind exparte.
6. Heard arguments on behalf of the complainant and Opposite Party No. 1.
7. The Points for consideration are that:
1) Whether there is any deficiency of Service on the part of Opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
3) To what relief?
8. POINT No. 1 to 3
The case of the complainant is that on 20-01-2012 he applied for the pass port with OP No.2 by paying Rs. 1,000/- to which OP No.2’s Office at Nizamabad gave acknowledgement letter No. EN 615778359IN and file No. HY 4061360887912 and that the pass port which was dispatched from pass port office Hyderabad vide speed post article No. EN 615778359IN was not received by him. His further case is that as there was no response he gave written complaint to the OP No.2 on 05-07-2012 mentioning the detailed facts and that the OP No. 1 gave a letter dated 06-07-2012 stating non delivery of article of speed post and enquiry is going on for which there was no information or intimation to him as such he again gave an application under RTI Act by giving full details of Original Passport sent by OP No.2 to OP.No.1 on 30-04-2012 and on receiving it OP.No. 1 gave a reply to it dated 8-08-2012 stating that the article was lost while in transit.
The fact with regarding to the loss of speed post article while in transit is admitted by OP No.1. According to the Opposite Party No.1 he informed the said fact to the complainant immediately and hence there is no negligence of service on his part. The very fact of loss of speed Post article while in transit and non delivery of the same by OP No.1 to the complainant itself amounts the negligence service on the part of OP No. 1 which attracts his liability. But as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act there is an exemption from such liability to the officer of the post office. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as follows.
“6 Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. The 11(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, dealy or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default”.
There is no evidence on record to show that OP No.1 has caused the loss of speed post article in transit fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. The complainant has not adduced any evidence either by way of filing his affidavit or examining any witnesses on his behalf to prove that the loss of speed post article in transit was caused by OP No.1 fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. It is in these circumstances we are of considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled to claim the relief as prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the points 1 to 3 are answered against the complainant.
9. In the result, the complaint is “DISMISSED” without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of August 2013.
