DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 415  of  2022

 

Sri Amitava Roy,

S/O- Sri Bimal Chandra Roy,

ROY BARI(1st Floor),

130/1 Motor Stand Road,

Near Kasari Patti,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. East  Agartala,

District-West Tripura- 799001. …..........Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

Agartala Postal Division,

Agartala- 799001, 

Agartala Head Post Office,

Department of Posts India. .............Opposite Party.

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant  : In person.

 

For the Opposite party : Sri Biswanath Majumder,

 

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. This complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection, Act, 2019 has been filed by Sri Amitava Roy of Motor Stand, Agartala, West Tripura(here-in-after called as “the complainant”) against the Superintendent of Postal Department, Agartala Postal Division(here-in-after called as “the O.P.”) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

1.1 Amitava Roy, the complainant has filed this complaint against the O.P. pleading inter alia that during the last 3 months he sent approximately 40 nos. of Registered Post articles with Acknowledgment Card on payment of appropriate fees including extra fees for Acknowledgment Card but no Acknowledgment Card was received by him from the postal authority showing delivery of the items at appropriate addressee. 

1.2 The complainant lodged good number of complaint to the Grievance Cell but no reply received by him. Hence, this case complaining deficiency in service and appropriate compensation.

1.3 The complainant has submitted his complaints including a few reply showing receipt of his complaint by the Postal authorities but never received any Acknowledgment Card. 

 

2. The O.P. submitted written objection pleading inter alia and in particular in Para- 9 of the written objection pleaded that the Acknowledgment cards were unregistered items, hence, the Acknowledgment card are treated as ordinary postal articles as per rules. As such could not be ascertain whether those Acknowledgment cards were delivered or not.

 

2.1 Further, in Para- 11 of the written objection the O.P. pleaded that instruction was issued to all the Head Post Offices and Sub-Post Offices under Agartala Postal Division regarding prompt delivery of Acknowledgment cards. Moreover, delivery information of the registered article are available in Indian Post Tracking. Hence, there is no deficiency in service. 

2.2 It is further pleaded in para- 16 of the written objection that postal article may subject to other  provisions be insured at the Post Offices against risk of loss or damage in course of transmission by post and receipt therefore, shall be granted to the person posting it. The O.P. cited 2 judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in their pleading.

 

3. The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit. 

3.1 Sri Manik Lal Das, Superintendent of Post Office, Agartala also submitted evidence on affidavit.

 

4. Hearing argument  of both the sides the following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

 5. Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

5.1 The O.P. has nowhere disputed that the complainant sent a number of items through post office and that acknowledgment cards were not delivered to the complainant inspite of the fact that extra charge for delivery of acknowledgment card was collected by the Postal Department from the complainant. The complainant has proved number of correspondences with the O.P. and by submitting mail copy of the O.P. the complainant has proved that such complaints of the complainant were received by the O.P.

 

5.2 Clause - “30” of the Indian Post Office Act as reproduced by the O.P. in written objection that any postal article which insured at the post office against the risk of loss or damage in course of transmission by post is not applicable in this case because it is not the case of the O.P. that the O.P. either lost any item or such items were damaged during the course of transmission.

 

5.3 Hon'ble National Commission in Post Master, Imphal and Ors. Vs. Dr. Jamini Devi, Sagolband 11(2000) CPJ 28(NC) expounded that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 grants complete immunity to the Government from liability for loss, misdelivery or damage of postal article and that no officer of the Post Office shall be liable for any damage by reason of loss, misdelivery etc. unless he has caused the same fraudulently or willful default. The Postal Department is not a common courier and an agent of the sender. It is really a branch of public service. The sender avails of a service statutorily provided by the Government. Inspite of the fact that a postal stamp have to be affixed but that is for the augmentation of the Government Revenue. It is not in the nature of price paid for service.

 

5.4 Again in the Presidency Post Master and Anr. Vs. Dr. U. Sankar Rao 111(1993) CPJ 141 (NC) Hon'ble National Commission was pleased to expound that the service rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. By establishing the Post Office and running postal services, the Central Government performs a Governmental function and Government is not engaged in any commercial transaction with the sender of article through post and the charges of the articles transmitted by post are in the nature of charges imposed by the state for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department.

5.5 Meaning thereby, under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 under Section 2(42) the service provided by the Indian Post Office for sending the items to the addressee unless insured, amounts to rendering service free of charge. As such not included within the definition of “Service” as given in the Section 2(42) of the Act. Rather, the postage stamp given by the complainant is only for the augmentation of revenue by the Central Government not as price paid for such service. The matter could have been otherwise if the sender had insured his articles or that if any service of the Postal Department is related to the banking in nature which presently the Postal Department has undertaken.  

5.6 Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant that he has any information that his items were not delivered to the addressee or that such delivery of items is not available in the Indian Postal Tracking. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as per Section 6 of the Post office Act, 1898. However, the Postal Department is supposed to deliver Acknowledgment Card as part of goodwill of the department although no deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 can be attributed because of the statutory immunity available to the Postal Department. The Superintendent of the Postal Department shall have to be vigilant in the matter. 

6. Both the points are decided accordingly in the negative.

7. In the result, the case stands dismissed.

8. Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to both the parties.

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.