Tripura

StateCommission

A/21/2024

SRI RAJIB KUMAR ROY - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE UNION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2024

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala: West Tripura

Case No. A.21 of 2024

 

 

 

1. Shri Rajib Kumar Roy

S/o Shri Krishna Chandra Roy

Bibekanda Pally, Ramnagar-8

Agartala, West Tripura, Pin: 799002.

.… … … … Appellant/Appellant-complainant

Vs

 

1. The Union of India,

(Represented by the Secretary of Post),

Dak Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.

 

2. The Chief Post Master General,

NE Circle, Shillong - 793001.

 

3. The Superintendent of Post

Agartala Head Post Office

Agartala – 799001, West Tripura.

.… … … … Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

Before

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh

President, State Commission

 

Smt. Daliya Saha

Member, State Commission

 

Shri Jhantu Debnath

Member, State Commission

 

 

 

 

Present:

For the Appellant:                                               In person.

For the Respondents:                                          Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, Addl. Standing Govt. Counsel.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:            04.11.2024.

whether fit for reporting:                                    Yes.                             

 

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

This is an appeal against the final order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.CC.87 of 2023.

2. Heard Shri Rajib Kumar Roy, the appellant-complainant who is present in person. Also heard Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, learned Addl. Standing Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-opposite parties, India Post.
3. Fact of the case is that the appellant-complainant booked a parcel on 13^th July, 2023 to be delivered through speed post from Agartala Head Post Office to his engaged learned counsel, Ms. Kiran Suri, Senior Advocate of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. It is stated in the complaint that at the time of booking, the counter operator of Post Office assured the appellant-complainant that the article will be delivered within 48 to 72 hours, i.e. within two to three days to the address as mentioned. The content of the Speed Post Parcel(for short, SPP) was an affidavit containing the movable and immovable assets declaration of the appellant-complainant in connection with one SLP(Civil) Case No.18000 of 2022, which was to be submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India within 18^th July, 2023 in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 5^th July, 2023. It is further stated that the decision of the case in the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dependent on the documents related to asset declaration by the appellant-complainant by way of an affidavit within scheduled time i.e. within 18^th July, 2023. On tracking the SPP through online, it has been found by the appellant-complainant that up to 18^th July, 2023 the SPP was remained in Agartala. On continuous persuasion by the appellant-complainant with the officials of the Postal Department, the SPP was dispatched finally from Agartala and the same was delivered on 24^th July 2023 at 16.51 hrs. after 11 days of booking. Due to such delay in delivery of the article by the Postal Department, Agartala, H.O., the appellant-complainant had to face mental and physical harassment and could not submit the affidavit within the scheduled time to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents-opposite parties, India Post, the appellant-complainant filed a complaint case before the learned District Commission for redress.
5. Learned District Commission dismissed the complaint case for non-prosecution at the stage of adducing evidence which is reproduced here-in-under:

“The complainant is absent without step.

On 21.02.24 the complainant prays for adjournment to submit evidence. On the next date on 30.03.2024 the complainant verbally prayed for adjournment to submit evidence on affidavit.

Today the complainant is absent without step. As such the complainant shows his intention not to proceed with the case.

Hence, the case stands disposed of with zero award.”

6. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned District Commission, the appellant-complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
7. Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, learned Addl. Standing Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents-opposite parties-India Post has submitted that there is no wilful negligence on the part of the respondents-opposite party, India Post. Mr. Chakraborty has further submitted that the Union of India or its Postal Department and its officers are not liable to compensate for the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage of any postal article/s in course of transmission by post in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, unless the loss is caused by some fraudulent or by wilful act or default by any staff of the Postal Department.
8. We find merit in this appeal. The India Post i.e. Post Office Authorities perform public duties. Such type of Government establishment must be answerable to public. It is the firm expectation of the general masses of this country that speed-post service that has been introduced in our country is to provide emergency service to the people in general of this country. In the speed-post service, it is the liability of Post Office Authorities that they the articles are to deliver within 48 hours or maximum by 72 hours.
9. In the instant case, it is apparent on the face of the record that the article was left with the Agartala Post Office till 19^th July, 2023 though the article was booked on 13^th July, 2023. This is an utter negligence on the part of the India Post at Agartala i.e. the Agartala Head Post Office for which they must be liable to pay adequate compensation to the appellant-complainant. The appellant-complainant had failed to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India due to the negligence of the respondents-Post Office Authorities.
10. Order dated 5^th July, 2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with Case No.18000 of 2022, it was categorically observed that if the reply affidavit could not be filed within the period of two weeks then an adverse inference would be drawn up against the party concerned. The appellant-complainant in compliance of the said order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had taken immediate steps to comply the order, but due to negligence on behalf of the Post Office Authorities, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had drawn an adverse inference against the appellant-complainant since the article did not reach to the learned engaged senior counsel of the appellant-complainant at Supreme Court on time.
11. We are in agreement with the submission of the appellant-complainant that for non-compliance of the order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had drawn an adverse inference against him and the amount of compensation had been enhanced due to alleged negligence for non-furnishing of the materials, the Hon’ble Supreme Court intended to know from the appellant-complainant.
12. In this circumstance, in our opinion, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had reasonable belief to come to a conclusion that the appellant-complainant did not make any attempt or did not make any endeavour to comply its order. In fact, the appellant-complainant had made all endeavours to comply the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but due to negligence on the part of the respondents-India Post, the appellant-complainant had to suffer a loss and he became a victim by paying huge compensation.
13. We have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the respondents, India Post had acted in a negligent manner and they had failed to provide necessary service which not only the appellant-complainant but the general people expect from this establishment.
14. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 reads as under:-

“6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- 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 he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

15.  

15.   In our considered view, it would be unwise to hold that when the Legislature had enacted Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended time to time, they were unaware of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The Legislatures intended to bring “The Consumer Protection Act, 1986” into force only for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for the purpose of making provision for establishment of Consumer Protection Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes, etc. Today’s market place contains a plethora of products and services. As such, consumer markets for goods and services have undergone drastic transformation since the enactment of “The Consumer Protection Act in 1986”. 

16. In this age of computerization, postal authorities are supposed to act with precision and efficiency. Citizens of this country trust the postal department. When the citizens of this nation place their trust in the Postal Department as one of the principal service provider and book articles for transmission, it is the responsibility of the Postal Authority and its employees to take the matter more seriously, transparently and carefully.
17. The different policies of the Government of India crystallize that it wants to have a vibrant Post Office. There are many other agencies which are dedicatedly rendering their services to their customers carrying articles from one place to another place. As such, in this competitive world, the Indian Posts will only survive if it can earn faith and belief that it is equally competent, rather to say, it can provide much better service than others.
18. In our opinion, Section 6 of the Post Office Act is aimed to provide a safeguard to the Government in case it fails to deliver goods or articles or cause delay or damage to such goods or articles due to such circumstances which were totally beyond the control of the Postal Department. Such circumstances, for example, may be an act of God, natural calamities or sudden fire or similar such circumstances unforeseen to the Government.
19. A plain reading of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act manifests that the protection is intended for the benefit of those who have committed bona fide mistakes, but, it would be wrong to hold that the said provision is intended to shield those who are guilty of dereliction of duty and callous in difference in performance of their functions. We re-affirm that Section 6 does not provide a windscreen to the Postal authorities and its staffs to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction, etc. on their part in discharge of their official duties. A delayed shipment of an article rather than on time to the addressee, in our opinion, clearly demonstrates a willful act of deficiency in service to their customers.
20. From the aforesaid facts, it is aptly clear that the appellant-complainant had sent the articles by speed post for a speedy dispatch and availed the services of the Postal Department (India Post) for which the postal charge was paid. Having paid for the services, the appellant-complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short C.P. Act). As such, the complainant is a ‘consumer’.
21. Sub-clause (9) of Section 2 of C.P. Act, 2019 includes services and the right of the consumer is protected.
22. Sub-clause (38) of Section 2 defines “product service provider” which means a person who provides any service in relation to product. As such, the Postal Department is a service provider in respect of the product i.e. the articles the complainant booked. Product means any article or goods [sub-clause (33) of Section 2].
23. Sub-clause (19) of Section 2 of C.P. Act defines “establishment” which includes public utility entities as are prescribed under the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020 [for short, C.P. Rules, 2020].
24. Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 2 of the C.P. Rules, 2020 defines ‘public utility service’ which reads as under:

“(b) ‘public utility service’ means any—

1. xxx                    xxx              xxx              xxx
2. Postal, telegraph, telephone or broadband service;
3. xxx                    xxx              xxx              xxx
4. xxx                    xxx              xxx              xxx
5. xxx                    xxx              xxx              xxx

25. Rule 3 of C.P. Rules, 2020 reads as under:- “3. Public utility services to be establishments.—Public utility services shall be establishments for the purpose of Clause (19) of Section 2 of the C.P. Act, 1986.”
26. A conjoint reading of sub-clause (ii) of Sub-Rule (b) under Rule 2 and Rule 3 of C.P. Rules, 2020 makes it crystal like clear that the Postal Department is an “establishment” providing “public utility services”.
27. Clause (37) of Section 2 of the C.P. Act defines “service” which means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of persona service.
28. In the instant case, the respondent-Postal Department had received adequate charge from appellant-complainant for dispatching the articles booked on time as its bounden duty to discharge its liability of providing speedy service, which it failed to discharge.
29. Clause (11) of Section 2 of the C.P. Act defines “deficiency”. From the definition of ‘deficiency’ it is clear that any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for any act of negligence or omission or commission which causes loss or injury to the consumer would entitle such consumer for “product liability action” under clause 35 of Section 2 of the C.P. Act i.e. such consumer can file a complaint before a District Commission or State Commission or National Commission, claiming compensation for the harm caused to him [‘harm’, clause 22 of Section 2 of C.P. Act] in relation to any product liability which includes (i) damage to any property and (iii) mental agony or emotional distress, etc. to the damaged property.
30. Having gone through the facts of the present case before us, we find that there is a willful act on the part of the Postal Department and further, Postal Department is found to be a defaulter of delivery of the articles booked on time and, thus, the Department appears to be negligent and for such negligence, they are liable to pay compensation to the appellant-complainant as the appellant-complainant had full faith upon the Postal Department.
31. According to us, if such act or conduct is allowed, then, each and every “loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage” is to be considered to be not having been caused “fraudulently” or by “willful act” or “default” by officials of the Postal Department. Even, if we take into consideration Section 6, then also we find that if post office authorities are found to be defaulter of providing the appropriate service to its customers, then also, it cannot escape its liability. The use of the word “default” in Section 6, according to us, has to be given broader interpretation. In the case on hand, articles booked by the complainant-appellant could not be delivered due to default of the post office authorities.
32. Further, Section 6 does not provide unfettered licence to the officials of the Postal Department and does not provide unquestionable immunity. The onus to establish that the protection of Section 6 can be taken in the given facts and circumstances of a particular case, is on the Postal Department, which onus it has not discharged in this case.
33. According to us, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act will not come in the way of awarding compensation in favour of the appellant-complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents-opposite parties-India Post has been brought under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Moreover, in the instant case, it is to be decided that whether the respondents-India Post was/is deficient in providing appropriate service to its customer(s). At the cost of repetition, in the instant case also, the respondents-Post Office had taken the prescribed charge for sending the articles to the recipient/addressee. As such, the respondents-India Post does not come within the purview of the expression “………….but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service...............” as incorporated under Section 2 (42) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 where the term “service” has been defined.

 

34. In the present case, it is the specific assertion of the appellant-complainant that had the articles been delivered to his learned engaged counsel in the Supreme Court i.e. the addressee of the articles on or before 18^th July, 2023, then, the direction of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India to deposit an amount of Rs.20.00 lakh in favour of the respondents would have been much lesser and it is a huge loss to the appellant-complainant as he has no such ability to pay such money and it was only due to the “default” of Postal authorities in dispatching the articles to his learned engaged counsel at New Delhi, and for this deficiency in service the respondent/India Post is liable to compensate him adequately. We have already held that there is clear deficiency in service in rendering appropriate service to the appellant-complainant as the Postal authority was in clear default to dispatch the articles to the addressee. Furthermore, the Postal authorities cannot take the advantage of Section 6 of the India Post Office Act, 1898 for the reason that the Postal Department falls within the purview of the definition of ‘public utility service’ under Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 2 of the C.P. Rules, 2020. That apart, Section 6 does not provide unfettered licence to the officials of the Post Office/India Post to act negligently or whimsically at the cost of appropriate service to its customers. The officials who are found responsible for dereliction of duties may be fastened with personal liability in this nature of case, but in no way a customer/consumer can be subjected to victim of the negligent act of the officials of the India Post.

 

35. In the light of above discussions on both legal and factual aspects, the present appeal deserves to be allowed with the advice to the Postal Department to render quality service to its customers and imbibe responsibility and accountability of its officials and staffs. By such deficiency in service, the Postal Department has seriously caused harm to the complainant-appellant, and as such the appellant is necessarily to be compensated.

 

36. In view of this, the appellant-complainant is entitled to be adequately compensated. The appellant-complainant has prayed for Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation. We find no reason to reduce the amount which the appellant-complainant has claimed in his complaint case. Accordingly, we direct the respondents-opposite parties, India Post to pay the appellant-complainant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh) as compensation for their failing to provide appropriate service to the appellant-complainant. The respondents-Post Office Authority is also liable to pay litigation cost and accordingly, we direct the respondents, India Post to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) to the appellant-complainant towards the cost of litigation.

 

 

With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal stands allowed and disposed.