Punjab

Sangrur

CC/424/2018

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ritesh Garg

13 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  424

                                                Instituted on:    08.10.2018

                                                Decided on:       13.12.2019

 

 

Satish Kumar aged about 51 years son of Shri Madan Lal R/O Magzine Street Near Old Grain Market, Neel Kant Mandir, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Ashoka Road,20, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.

2.     The Superintendent Post Office, Court Road, Sangrur.

3.     The Post Master (Main) Post Office, Court Road, Sangrur 148001.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant          :       Shri Ritesh Garg, Adv.

For Opp.parties                        :       Shri S.S.Randhawa, Adv.

 

 

Quorum                                          

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Ms. Vandana Sidhu, Member

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER BY:     

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

 

 

1.             Shri  Satish Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by sending a registered parcel to his daughter namely Geetika Dua, resident of 474 Buckna Street Trail, B.C.V. I R 3 Canda of 11940 GM on 17.7.2018 for which the OP number 3 charged an amount of Rs.5367/- and the OP number 3 assured that it will reach to the destination by 15 or 20 days, but the same has not been delivered till the filing of the complainant.  The complainant approached Ops a number of times, but of no avail and the complainant also got served a legal notice dated 20.9.2018.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.5367/- which was paid to the OP and further to pay Rs.8500/- being the cost of value of articles along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable under section 6 of Indian Post Offices Act, that the postal services provided by the Government extend throughout the territory of India and abroad. A postal article sent from the remotest village in Kashmir will reach the addressee to the outermost point of  the world. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had booked an international SAL parcel for Canada through OP number 3 on 17.7.2018 and paid an amount of Rs.5367/-. It is stated that the said parcel was sent for its destination on the same day through Ludhiana RMS and the parcel in question reached at Delhi Foreign Post Office on 19.7.2018 and sent the same to Mumbai Foreign Post office on 20.7.2018 and the parcel in question reached Toronto (Canada) on 23.7.2018, but the custom office of
Toronto had retained the said parcel for presentation of the same to the Customs Commissioner and after completion of necessary formalities had released the parcel on 25.7.2018 and after that the said parcel was sent for domestic location, but the addressee of the said parcel refused to take the delivery of the same. It is further stated that the Canadian Administration imposed the charges of 117.04 SDR i.e. Rs.12,003/-  has become due towards the sender of the parcel in question. Thereafter due to non availability of address of sender on the parcel, as well as not claimed by any claimant of said parcel, the Ludhiana RMS office had sent the said parcel to the main hub of Punjab State’s unclaimed parcels in the office of Amritsar RLO. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant availed the services of the OP by sending a registered parcel to his daughter namely Geetika Dua, resident of 474 Buckna Street Trail, B.C.V. I R 3 Canada of 11940 GM on 17.7.2018 for which the OP number 3 charged an amount of Rs.5367/- and the OP number 3 assured that it will reach to the destination by 15 or 20 days, but the same has not been delivered till the filing of the complainant.  The complainant approached Ops a number of times, but of no avail and the complainant also got served a legal notice dated 20.9.2018.As such, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended for acceptance of the complaint against the Ops. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops has contended that the complainant had got booked an international SAL parcel for Canada through OP number 3 on 17.7.2018 and paid an amount of Rs.5367/-. It is contended further that the said parcel was sent for its destination on the same day through Ludhiana RMS and the parcel in question reached at Delhi Foreign Post Office on 19.7.2018 and sent the same to Mumbai Foreign Post office on 20.7.2018 and the parcel in question reached Toronto (Canada) on 23.7.2018, but the custom office of
Toronto had retained the said parcel for presentation of the same to the Customs Commissioner and after completion of necessary formalities had released the parcel on 25.7.2018 and after that the said parcel was sent for domestic location, but the addressee of the said parcel refused to take the delivery of the same. It is further stated that the Canadian Administration imposed the charges of 117.04 SDR i.e. Rs.12,003/-  which has become due towards the sender of the parcel in question. Thereafter due to non availability of address of sender on the parcel, as well as not claimed by any claimant of said parcel, the Ludhiana RMS office had sent the said parcel to the main hub of Punjab State’s unclaimed parcels in the office of Amritsar RLO. Lastly the learned counsel for Ops has contended for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant availed the services of the Ops by getting booked a registered parcel on 17.7.2018 which was to be delivered to the addressee at Canada, for which the OP number 3 charged an amount of Rs.5367/-, but the said parcel never reached to the addressee.  Further there is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the official of OP who booked the parcel did not check the address and further why he did not point out the complainant about getting the parcel in question insured from the insurance company.  Further the OPs were bound to explain to the complainant about the charges to be levied which he failed to do, hence it amounts to deficiency in service for which complainant is entitled to be compensated.  Further the OPs have not produced any documentary evidence to show that the complainant was ever apprised to take back the delivery of the parcel in question after returning India. In the circumstances, we find it to be a case of clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct Ops to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.8000/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual realisation, for deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. This order be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.             This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because posts of President and Lady Member are lying vacant since 7.8.2018 and 16.09.2018 respectively. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.

Pronounced.

                        December 13, 2019.  

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

          Member                  Member                 President