The Complainant Shri Rabi Das alias Sunil Das has filed the present petition of complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, wherein he has stated that he sent one Book-post vide EW519911413 IN containing one LENOVO K6 Note Grey coloured Mobile Hand-set, valued Rs.15,999/- along with other Mobile accessories valued Rs. 2,300/- i.e Rs.18,299/- in total on 28.8.2017 to his daughter Soumita Das at Shile House - 2, Varsoba Budha Gali No.2, Yari Road, Andheri East, Mumbai : 400 061. The complainant sent the said article from Rajganj, Post Office & District : Jalpaiguri and he paid the postal charge, amounting to Rs.94/- as directed by the postal employee. The daughter of the complainant Soumita Das visited Mumbai Post office several times, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. As such the complainant lodged one written
complaint before the Superintendent of Post Offices at Jalpaiguri on 6.10.2017. On receiving the said complaint, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri Division issued one letter dated 9.10.2017 to the complainant intimating that Mumbai SPCC has reported that the article sent by the complainant has been lost in transit. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri also suggested the complainant to claim compensation in prescribed form. Accordingly, the complainant submitted his claim in prescribed form duly filled in. After receiving the said claim application, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri Division in his letter dated 24.10.2017 intimated the complainant that a sum of Rs.188/-(One hundred Eighty-eight Rupees only) has been sanctioned towards compensation for the loss of domestic Speed post article. As such the complainant issued one Advocate’s Notice to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri, claiming Rs.18,299/-and postal charge of Rs.94/-along with other compensation in place of Rs. 188/-. In spite of receiving the said legal notice, the Superintendent of Post offices, Jalpaiguri Division, did not care to give any reply which has compelled the complainant to file the present case praying for reliefs as per prayer mentioned in the petition of complaint.
The opposite parties are contesting the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations mentioned in the petition of complaint contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. There is no cause of action for the present case. The O.Ps in their written version have admitted that the complainant sent one article through Speed post, vide postal receipt no. EW519911413 IN on 28.8.2017 through Rajganj Sub-Post Office for delivering the said article to the addressee at Mumbai. Subsequently the complainant lodged one complaint before the O.P no.1. So, the matter was enquired into. After enquiry the Mumbai Division reported that the article has been lost in transit. Accordingly, the O.P no.1 by his letter dated 9.10.2017 intimated the said fact to the complainant and also requested him to submit claim form in prescribed form, duly filled in, for compensation. As per rules of the Postal department a sum of Rs.188/- was sanctioned towards the compensation for loss of domestic speed post article. The sanctioned amount was duly intimated to the complainant by O.P no.1 by a letter dated 9.10.2017. It has also been mentioned in the written version that the article sent by the complainant through domestic speed post was not insured by him. As such as per rules of the Postal department the complainant is entitled to Rs. 1,000/- or double the amount of speed post charge whichever is less for non-insured articles sent through domestic speed post. Accordingly a sum of Rs.188/- was sanctioned for compensation which is double the amount of postal charge amounting to Rs.94/- paid by the complainant. As the article was not insured, the complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 18,299/- as claimed by him. He is entitled to Rs.188/- only, which was duly sanctioned by the opposite parties without any delay. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for, and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Considering the rival pleadings of both parties the following points have been framed.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION :-
- Is the complainant a consumer ?
2) Was there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?
3) Is the complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for
4) To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled ?
DECISION WITH REASONS:-To
IIn the instant case neither the complainant, nor the opposite parties adduced any oral evidence. They also did not file any affidavit-in-chief. However, both the parties
submitted before the Forum to pass final order/judgment on the basis of the petition of complaint supported by affidavit along with the documents annexed therein and the written version supported by affidavit along with documents annexed therein treating them as their respective evidence on affidavit. Accordingly, we have carefully gone through the petition of complaint along with the documents annexed therein treating the same as evidence on affidavit on behalf of the complaint and the written version along with documents annexed therein treating the same as the evidence on affidavit on behalf of the O.P. We have also carefully perused the B.N.A filed by both parties. We have also heard arguments of both sides in full and at length./
Point No.1 :-PF
This point has been not pressed by the parties. As such this point is decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2 :-
It is the case of the complainant that he sent one mobile-phone through speed post from Rajganj Post Office, Jalpaiguri on 28.8.2017for delivering the same to his daughter Soumita Das at Mumbai. But the said article was not delivered to his daughter. So, he lodged one complaint before the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri Division, Jalpaiguri. In reply to the said complaint, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri Division in his letter dated 9.10.2017 intimated the complainant that the said article has been lost.
From the Xerox copy of the Postal receipt dated 28.8.2017 we find that the complainant sent one postal article weighing 360 grams for delivering the same to one Soumita Das of Shile House-2, Versaba, Mumbai, PIN : 400 061. The complainant paid postage stamp amounting to Rs.94/- for the said postal article. From the letter dated 9.10.2017 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri Division, Jalpaiguri, to the complainant Shri Rabi Das, we find that the complainant has been intimated that as reported by Mumbai SPCC the article has been treated as lost in transit. Therefore, from the Xerox copy of the postal receipt and from the Xerox copy of the letter issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri, Division it is clear to us that on 28.8.2017 the complainant sent one speed post article, vide postal receipt No. EW519911413 IN dated 28.8.2017 to the addressee Smt. Soumita Das of Mumbai. It is also clear to us that the said speed post article has been lost in transit.
Now the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties are not paying the value of the article amounting to Rs. 18,299/- sent by him. So, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. On the other hand, according to the opposite parties the article sent by the complainant was not insured by him. As such the complainant is not entitled to get the value of the article sent by him as compensation as per the rule of the Postal Department.
From section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, we find that it goes as follows:-
‘’The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transaction 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.’’ The Hon‘ble National Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition no.15 of 1997(Head Post Master, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana & others-Vs-Vijay Rattan Agarwal) on 18th September, 2002, has been pleased to state that section 6 of the Post Office Act has been interpreted by the Hon’ble National Commission previously in the case of Post Master, G.P.O, Pune-Vs-Akhil Bharatiya Grahok Panchayat & another – II(1995) CPJ 230 and Post Master, Imphal & others –Vs- Dr. Jamini Devi Sagol band-I(2000) CPJ 28. According to the said interpretation of the Hon’ble National Commission, section 6 exempts Post offices liability for loss ,mis-delivery, delay or damage of any postal article in course of transaction by post, except such liability is undertaken by the Government in express terms. The first part of section 6 deals with complete immunity from the Government from liability, second part would be applicable regardless of any scheme under which postal article is sent. According to section 33 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, 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 a postal article has been insured to the sender thereof for the loss of the postal articles or it contains 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 damage caused.
Thus as per section 33 of the Act, compensation can be given to the sender not exceeding the amount for which a postal article has been insured. So, unless the article is insured the value of the article sent cannot be compensated. We have already found that the complainant did not insure the article before sending it. He sent the article through Speed post.
Now the question is what will be the compensation for the article sent through Speed post.
Scheme of Speed Post has been provided under Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 by amendment to the statutory rules, 1933, rule 66B was introduced in 1986 with effect from 1.8.1986. The said rule 66B relates to Speed Post. The said rule 66B was also subsequently amended. As per circular no. 43-4/87-B.D.D dated 22.1.1999, issued by General Manager(DD), Department of Post, in the event of loss of Speed Post Article compensation payable to the customer will be double the speed post charges or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. Thus, as per Indian Post Office Rules, the compensation for the article sent through speed post will be double the postal charges or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. It has been clearly decided by the National Commission, Delhi, that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we cannot go beyond the statutory provision and grant compensation more than that what is statutorily fixed. The consumer is bound by the terms of the contract, howsoever oppressive this may be, unless those terms are against the policy or illegal or void.
We have already found that the complainant sent the article through Speed Post and he paid Rs.94/- as postal charges. So, he is entitled to get double the said amount i.e. Rs. 188/- in total as compensation as per rules of the Postal department. From the letter dated 24.10.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri Division, Jalpaiguri, to the complainant, we find that a sum of Rs.188/- has already been sanctioned to the complainant in accordance with the rule for compensation in respect to the domestic Speed Post article. Thus, the opposite parties acted in accordance with the rules of the Postal Department by sanctioning Rs. 188/- as compensation. They have no authority to sanction the value of the article as claimed by the complainant. Thus, we find that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. This point is thus decided against the complainant.
Point Nos. 3 and 4 :-
From the discussions made above and in the light of our observations, we find that the complainant sent one Speed Post article to his daughter at Mumbai from Rajganj Post Office, Jalpaiguri. But the said article was not delivered to the addressee and was treated as lost Speed Post article in transit. Accordingly, the opposite parties sanctioned a sum of Rs.188/- which is the double of the postal charges paid by the complainant as compensation for the loss of Speed Post article in transit, in accordance with the Postal Rules. So, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. As the article was not insured by the complainant, as such he is not entitled to get the value of the article as compensation, as claimed by him. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the case is liable to be dismissed.
These points are decided against the complainant.
As a result the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D :-
that the Consumer Case No. 63 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite parties without cost.
Let the original documents, if any, filed by the parties, be returned on proper receipt.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of coston proper acknowledgment or be sent by speed post, in terms of Rule 5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987 and the extra-sets be returned to the parties on proper receipt.
