BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.36/2013

Dated this the 2^nd day of November 2015.

T. Pattabiramane, son of Thillaigovindan,

No.40, S.V. Patel Salai, Pondicherry – 605 001.

                                                            ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices

    Pondicherry Division 

    Pondicherry – 605 001. 

2. Post Master, 

    Head Post Office                         

    Pondicherry – 1.        

                                                            ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                      :  Thiru,S. Ashokumar, Advovate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES               :  Thiru R. Balasubramanian,  

                Advocate/ACGSC   

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A. ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties to return the cost of the parceled goods along with the parcel booking charge totally to a sum of rs.16,400/-;  pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and frustration suffered by the complainant due to the act of the Opposite parties.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant booked a gift parcel containing valuable gifts, chocolates, sweets, dresses etc. worth about Rs.15,000/- to the second Opposite Party on 04.07.2012 vide Parcel No. C.P. 419416553UB to his grand daughter Suvitha Rajesh, residing at 1D, 26, Rue Des Pecheurs, 95140, Garges-Les-Gonesse, France.   The complainant was charged Rs.1,400/- as service charge by the second Opposite Party for delivering the Parcel at France, but the same was not delivered at France.  The complainant enquired the 2^nd Opposite Party for non-delivery of parcel, they have informed that the address is incorrect.  The complainant stated that he sent a letter to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 23.07.2012 for which the second Opposite Party has sent a letter stating that the parcel was returned with endorsement that the address is incorrect and hence, the same may be returned to the sender i.e. Complainant and that the complainant can receive back the same on payment of Rs.3,532/- as return postal due.  The complainant approached the Opposite Parties and requested to return back the parcel without the postal charges, but the Opposite Parties acted irresponsibly and left him wandering which amounts to deficiency in service.  The Opposite Parties also made the complainant to utmost frustration and mental agony.   The complainant issued a lawyer's notice on 22.10.2012 to the Opposite Parties and the same were acknowledged by them.   Instead of sending reply, the Opposite Parties sent a letter to the complainant to receive back the parcel on payment of the postal due charges.  Hence, this complaint.   

3.         The following are the averments narrated in the reply version filed by the Opposite Party No.1 and adopted by Opposite Party No.2:

            It is stated by the Opposite Parties that one R. Balabascarane, Importer and Exporter, No.76, Perumal Koil Street, Pondicherry had actually booked the parcel of the complainant on 4.7.2012 at Pondicherry Head Office by paying a postage of rs.1070/- not Rs.1400/-.  As per Clause 95 of Post Office Guide Part II, "the postage charges cover only the onward journey of the parcel till the office of destination indicated".  In this case, the parcel booked by the complainant reached the office of destination at France and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of India Post.  It is further stated by the opposite parties that on 23.07.2012 the complainant preferred a complaint to the Opposite Party No.2 and the same was forwarded the same to Opposite Party No.1 for necessary action.  The second opposite Party also referred the complaint along with the enclosures to Foreign Post, Chennai for necessary action and informed the complainant to await further communication in this regard.  The Foreign Post, Chennai vide its letter dated 31.07.2012 informed the Opposite Party No.1 that the parcel was returned by the France Postal Administration for the reason "Incorrect Address" and hence, the return postage amount due (Rs.3532/-) charged by France Post could not be waived as per Clause 102 of PO Guide Part II.  The same was informed to the complainant.  The complainant insisted for the delivery of the parcel to the addressee and waiwal of the return postage due Rs.3532/-. The Opposite Party No.1 vide his letter dated 9.8.2012 addressed the Director, Foreign Post, Chennai to take up the case with the Foreign Administration on the points that registered letters posted after the despatch of the parcel under reference to the same addressee have been correctly delivered along with booking receipt and delivery proof etc. as per IPS Web tracking report submitted by the complainant requesting to settle the complaint at the earliest as the complainant is pressing for the same and the content inside the parcel may deteriorate.  The investigation taken with French Post replied on 27.9.2012 that "item returned to origin" and reason as "incorrect delivery address".  In such cases, after trying to effect delivery, the foreign postal administration, levies return postage charges for returning the parcel to sender in India which could not be waived under any circumstances.   The Opposite Parties further stated that the complainant would have taken up the case with concerned Foreign Postal Administration through the addressee.  It is also stated by the Opposite Parties that the parcel was booked on 4.7.2012 and the same was dispatched on the same day to Chennai Air Foreign who in turn dispatched to France on 5.7.2012 and the said parcel reached France on 9.7.2012 without any deficiency of service or delay.  The parcel was returned by the France Postal Administration stating the reason as "incorrect address" for which Indian Post could not be held responsible.  It is also stated by the Opposite Parties that as per declaration given by the complainant during the booking of parcel, he declared the value of contents as Rs.250/- only.  The customs declaration was not duly filled up by the sender along with his signature.  As per the Universal Postal Union's Postal Parcels Manual Article 18, Prot Art XII; RC 146 "no liability shall be accepted by any of the designated operators (i.e. India Post in this case) for customs declarations.  The completion of the customs declaration shall be the responsibility of the sender alone".  Further the complainant had taken delivery of the parcel on 11.05.2013 itself.  Further, as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, 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 it was caused by fraudulent willful or default act of its official.   Further stated that if the sender refused to accept the parcel and not ready to pay the return charges the parcel will be disposed off as per the rules and procedures framed by the Department.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         Points for determination are:

            1. Whether the complainant is the Consumer?

            2. Whether any deficiency in service attributed by the Opposite Parties?

            3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled for?

5.         Point No.1:

            The complainant sent a Parcel  of gift to his grand daughter Suvitha Rajesj residing at France through Opposite parties on 04.07.2012 by an agent namely R. Balabascarane, Importer and Exporter vide Ex.C2 the Postal receipt.  Thus, the complainant is the beneficiary of the service rendered by the Opposite Parties.  Hence, the complainant is the consumer of the Opposite Parties.

6.         Point No.2:

            We have perused the entire records, the complaint, reply version, exhibits, evidence of both the parties and heard the arguments.  The complainant submitted that on 04.07.2012 he sent a gift parcel worth about Rs.15,000/- with the help of an agent Balabascarane, for valid consideration of Rs.1,400/- to his grand daughter at France, but the same was not delivered at France and on enquiry by letter dated 23.07.2012 Ex.C5, it was informed by the second Opposite Party that the parcel was returned with endorsement that the address is incorrect and the second Opposite Party asked the complainant to receive back the same on payment of rs.3,532/- as return postal due.  It is alleged by the complainant that he requested the Opposite Parties to return the parcel without postal charges, but the same was refused by the Opposite Parties.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice on 22.10.2012 to the Opposite Parties for deficiency in service and for compensation for the mental agony suffered by him, though it was acknowledged by the Opposite Parties vide Ex.C12 series, instead of sending reply, they have sent a letter to the complainant to receive back the parcelon payment of the postal due charges. 

7. Apart from admitting the sending of gift parcel by the complainant through one R. Balabascarane, Importer and Exporter, the Opposite Parties submitted that the postal charge of Rs.1070/- alone paid by the complainant and not Rs.1,400/- and also submitted that as per Clause 95 of the Post Office Guide Part II, "the postal charges cover onlyt he onward journey of the parcel till the office of destination indicated".  It is further submitted by the Opposite Parties that the Parcel reached the office of destination at France and that therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of India Post.  It is alleged by the Opposite Parties that the complaint given by the complainant Ex.C5 dated 23.07.2012 was forwarded to the Foreign Post, Chennai vide its letter dated 31.07.2012 Ex.C7 who in turn informed the Opposite Party No.1 that the parcel was returned by the France Postal Administration for "Incorrect address" and hence, the return postage amount of Rs.3,532/- charged by France Post could not be waived as per Clause 102 of PO Guide Part II and the same was also informed to the complainant.  It is further alleged by the opposite parties that the parcel was book on 4.7.2012 and the same was dispatched on the same day to Chennai Air Foreign who in turn dispatched to France on 5.7.2012 and the said parcel reached France on 9.7.2012 without any deficiency of service or delay.  Further, the complainant has given declaration that the value of contents is Rs.250/- only.  Further, the complainant taken delivery of the parcel on 11.5.2013 itself. 

            8. From the above facts and material, we ascertained that the complainant has sent a gift parcel to France on 04.07.2012 through the second Opposite party's post office who in turn dispatched to Chennai on the same day itself and the Chennai Air Foreign dispatched the same to France on 5.7.2012 and the parcel was reached to France on 9.7.2012 and the France Post only returned the parcel stating that "incorrect delivery address" and hence, the said parcel was returned to origin i.e. to India by the France Post and directed to collect return postage of Rs.3,532/-.  The complaint arose when the complainant insisted the Opposite Parties to return the parcel without return postal charge.  As per Ex.R3, the second Opposite Party forwarded the complaint Ex.C5 to the "Head Clerk", Foreign Mail, Foreign Post, FPD Export, Chennai – 1 on 24.07.2012 for which the Foreign Post, Chennai sent a letter Ex.R4 dated 31.07.2012 to the OP1 stating that the said parcel was returned to sender by France Postal Administration for the reason incorrect Address.  It is the allegation of the complainant that he sent a registered letter vide Exs.C3 and C4 from Sri Aurobindo Ashram SO to the complaint mentioned addressee's address and the same was delivered on 30.7.2012 to the same addressee at France.  But, on perusal of Exs.C3 and C4, it is found that the letter was sent to France to the addressee's address, but, there was no proof to show as to whether the addressee has received the said letter.  Only one side of the acknowledgement card alone marked and the other side with signature of addressee Suvitha Rajesh was not found.  Hence, the plea taken by the complainant that he sent a speed post to the addressee through Sri Aurobind Ashram SO and delivered the addressee by the France Post is not accepted.  But, as per Exs.R5 and R6, the Opposite Parties tried to waive the returned postal charges and sought permission from the Director, Foreign Post Chennai who in turn made enquiry with the France Postal Administration, but they have refused to waive the return postal charge and the same was intimated to the complainant by the Opposite Party No.1 on 4.7.2012 vide Ex.R14.    Hence, it is clear that the Opposite Parties have taken all the effort to deliver the parcel to the addressee at France and France Postal Administration only returned the same stating that "incorrect delivery address" and hence, complainant has not established the Act of the Opposite Parties has been caused fraudulently or by willful act or default.

            9. Further, the Opposite parties have relied upon a judgement reported in "THE POST MASTER, IMPHAL AND OTHERS vs DR. JAMINI DEVI SAGOLBAND (Revision Petition No. 986 of 1996) wherein, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that

"…… no relief can be granted to a complainant on the mere allegation of loss or non-delivery of the postal article.  A postal employee may be made liable provided an action was brought against him and it was proved that he was guilty of fraud or willful act or default leading to the loss of the postal article or non-delivery thereof.  In the instant case, the complaint has been made against the Post Master and Director General of Postal Service.  There is no allegation of any fraud or willful act or default on the part of any one of the respondent.  The complaint, therefore, must fail and be dismissed."

The above authority is squarely applicable to the present case on hand since there is no allegation of any fraud, or willful act of default on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The return of the alleged parcel was made only by France Postal Administration as "incorrect delivery address". Hence,  the complainant has not established the Act of the Opposite Parties has been caused fraudulently or by willful act or default.

            10. Further, this Forum relied on the Authority of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 986/1996 and Revision Petition No. 2411/2006.  This Forum relied on the recent Judgment rendered by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 535/2015 [INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT, HEAD POST OFFICE VS AMITABH SRIVASTAVA – 2015 (2) CPR 308 (NC)], wherein the observation made as

            The Present case swirls around the question regarding the bar created by section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.  The said section runs as under:

        "Sec. 6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.  The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason or 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 willful act or default"

and also observed,

        "……Post office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of sender of postal article for reaching it to addressee – It is a branch of public service, providing postal services subject to provisions of Indian Post Office Act and rules made thereunder – Services rendered by Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability".

“The services rendered for the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. Establishing the Post Offices and running the postal service the Central Government performs a governmental function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for the article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges posed by the State for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier.”

Hence, the Opposite Parties are not liable for any deficiency in service as prayed by the complainant.

            11.  Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in Point No.2, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed.  Hence, this complaint is hereby dismissed.  No costs.

Dated this the 2^nd day of November 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  NIL

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  NIL

COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS MARKED ON CONSENT

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS MARKED ON CONSENT:

( A. ASOKAN )

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER