BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 271 of 2015 Date of Institution: 18.6.2015
Date of Decision: 30.10.2015
Sham Arora, Son of Sh. Dayal Dass Arora, resident of House No.25, Street No.6,Ferozepur Cantt.
……..Complainant
Versus
The Superintendant/Post Master, Post Office, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur-152001.
……… opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
C. C. No. 271 of 2015 //2//
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. J.S. Kalra, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. A.S. Sodhi, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has sent a parcel through registered post no.CP112839143IN dated 20.11.2014 which was booked at Post Office, Ferozepur Head Quarter for sending the same to Bhim Sain Sharma Village Chharba, Near Tubewell No.3, Dehradoon-248197. The complainant had sent a mobile phone make Nokia 220 worth Rs.2700/- which was purchased by the complainant from Hanish Telecom, Ferozepur Cantt vide invoice No.550 dated 12.11.2014 and one box of dry fruit worth Rs.325/- through this parcel. The complainant had paid the requisite charges for sending the above said parcel. The above said parcel was lost by the Postal authorities and was not received at the
C. C. No. 271 of 2015 //3//
address to which was sent due to the negligence of the opposite party. The complainant had number of times contacted the opposite party, who have been putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant filed the claim form alongwith documents and in response to the claim from the complainant received a letter dated 19.1.2015 from Superintendent Post Office, Ferozepur Division stating therein regarding the sanction received for refund of postage amount of Rs.100/- for non delivery of registered parcel. The opposite party had not paid any compensation for the articles lost by the opposite party. Further it has been pleaded that non receipt of the parcel at the address to which was sent and being lost in the transaction, the complainant has caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs.2700/- for loss of mobile phone make Nokia 220 and Rs.325/-for the price of box of dry fruit alongwith interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and damages for causing unnecessary harassment, mental agony and tension and to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party has appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint raising certain preliminary objections interalia that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the present
C. C. No. 271 of 2015 //4//
complaint filed by the complainant is against law and facts on record and is liable to be dismissed; that the complainant has alleged that he has sent a mobile vide a parcel through Post Office, but no proof of the same has been given and that as per law any valuable article could not have been sent by ordinary parcel and the same should have been done by insuring the same. On merits, it has been pleaded in the written reply that the complainant has no proof of sending of mobile phone and box of dry fruit through parcel, even otherwise a valuable articles such as a mobile could not have been sent by ordinary post. The Postal Authority has to face a very heavy rush of work and some time a parcel may lost/misplaced. From the claim form, it came to notice of the opposite party that the complainant had sent a Nokia mobile through registered parcel which is valuable article and which is required to be sent through insured parcel facility of the department. As per section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Post Office is not responsible for loss of article during transmission. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation as alleged. As per para 6 of the Post Office Rule, the Postal Authority are exempt from liability for loss, misdelivery etc. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand,
C. C. No. 271 of 2015 //5//
learned counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
5. The version of the complainant is that the complainant sent a parcel through registered post no.CP112839143IN dated 20.11.2014 which was booked at Post Office, Ferozepur Head Quarter for sending the same to Bhim Sain Sharma Village Chharba, Near Tubewell No.3, Dehradoon-248197 is admitted by the opposite party. The parcel was lost by the Postal Authority and was not received at the address to which the parcel was sent is also admitted by the opposite party. The opposite party in his written reply pleaded that the complainant has no proof of sending the mobile phone and the box of dry fruit to Bhim Sain Sharma Village Chharba, Near Tubewell No.3, Dehradoon-248197. The complainant pleaded in the complaint that the complainant had sent the mobile phone make Nokia 220 worth Rs.2700/- which was purchased by the complainant from Hanish Telecom, Ferozepur Cantt vide invoice No.550 dated 12.11.2014. To prove his version the complainant has placed on file copy of bill Ex. C-2 that the complainant purchased the mobile from Hanish Telecom. From Ex. C-2, it is proved that the complainant
C. C. No. 271 of 2015 //6//
purchased the mobile phone for consideration of Rs.2700/- from Hanish Telecom. The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that the complainant had sent the mobile and one box of dry fruit worth Rs.325/- through parcel and the complainant had paid the requisite charges for sending the above said parcel. The complainant had placed on file postal receipt Ex. C-7 to prove that the complainant had sent the parcel to Bhim Sain Sharma Village Chharba, Near Tubewell No.3, Dehradoon-248197. From the postal receipt Ex. C-7, it is not proved that the complainant had sent the mobile phone and one box of dry fruit to Bhim Sain Sharma Village Chharba, Near Tubewell No.3, Dehradoon-248197. The version of the opposite party is that the Postal Authority have to face a very heavy rush of work and some time a parcel get may lost/misplaced. The complainant has no proof of sending of any such article to Bhim Sen at Dehradoon, even otherwise a valuable articles such as a mobile could not have been sent by ordinary post. The version of the opposite party that from the claim form, it came to notice of the opposite party that the complainant had sent a Nokia mobile through registered parcel which is valuable article and which is required to be sent through insured parcel facility of the department. As per section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Post Office is not responsible for loss of article during transmission. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation as alleged. As per para 6 of the Post Office Rule, the Postal
C. C. No. 271 of 2015 //7//
Authority are exempt from liability for loss, misdelivery etc. Section 6 of the Post Office Act expressly states that the employees of department are not responsible for any delay in the delivery letter and their actions are proceeds under law. The provisions of Section of the Post Office Act are quoted as under:-
“Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. The Government shall not incur any liability by reason for 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 such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”
6. The Hon’ble National Commission has laid down a precedent in Superintendent of Post and Telegraphy Vs. M.L. Gupta & another, 2011 CPC, page 419 (NC) that the opposite parties/post offices cannot take shelter of Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices act. In case the article is sent in speed post, the
C. C. No. 271 of 2015 //8//
provisions of Section 6 of the said Act can be invoked only.Therefore, the opposite party is held deficient in rendering service by not sending the parcel to Bhim Sain Sharma Village Chharba, Near Tubewell No.3, Dehradoon-248197. The complainant is not entitled to price of Nokia mobile phone and one box of dry fruit because he has failed to prove that he had sent the mobile phone through parcel.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- with litigation expenses. This order is directed to be complied with by the opposite party within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of its copy. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
30.10.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
