DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:327 of 2011] Date of Institution : 25.07.2011 Date of Decision :09.05.2012 Sh. Daya Ram Singh Yadav son of Sh. Ram Badan Yadav resident of House No.181-B, Labour Colony-5, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. VERSUS 1. Union Bank of India through its Branch Manager, SCF No.3, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh. 2. General Post Office (GPO) through its Post Master, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Bimal Maini, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP No.1. Sh. R. P. Singh, Advocate for OP No.2 along with Sh. Gurmail Singh, Agent O/o OP No.2. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Daya Ram Singh Yadav has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- (i) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- along with interest on account of loss of Cheque No.337997 dated 03.11.2010. (ii) To pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment as well as costs of litigation; 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he is having a Savings Account No.398902011023516 with OP No.1 Bank. He had deposited cheque No.337997 dated 03.11.2010 for Rs.10,000/- with OP No.1, drawn on State Bank of India, Sector 22-C Branch, Chandigarh. The said cheque was dishonored on the ground that the Drawers Signatures did not tally and Rs.50/- was debited from the account of the complainant as cheque return charges. According to the complainant, the said cheque along with Return Memo was sent by OP No.1 through OP No.2 to him at his residential address but the same was not delivered to him. However, when enquired, it came to his notice, that the OP No.2 in a very casual, careless and negligent manner has lost the said cheque. It is next averred that the Postman namely Jagatpal also gave statement to the police regarding the loss of registered letters and a DDR No.5 dated 10.12.2010 was registered. As per the complainant, he gave written complaints dated 13.01.2011 and 18.01.2011 to OP No.1 but to no effect. However, OP No.2 vide its letter dated 11.01.2011 asked the complainant to fill the prescribed form in order to consider grant of compensation. The complainant filled the said form and sent it to OP No.2. According to the complainant, OP No.2 issued a cheque No.293107 dated 09.03.2011 for Rs.100/- on account of loss of registered letter to him. According to the complainant, he has suffered a loss of Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of the cheque in question due to casual, careless and negligent act of OPs, which, according to him, amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it has been admitted that the complainant is having a Savings Account No.398902011023516 with it and he deposited a cheque No.337997 dated 03.11.2010 for Rs.10,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Sector 22-C Branch, Chandigarh. It is further admitted that the said cheque was rejected on the ground that the Drawers Signatures did not tally and Rs.50/- was debited from the account of the complainant as “cheque return charges”. However, it has been pleaded that the cheque in question was duly sent to the complainant along with “Return Memo” through OP No.2 under registered post. It has also been admitted that the said cheque sent via registered post through OP No.2 did not reach the complainant and a DDR for loss of the said registered letter was also got registered by the concerned Area Postman namely Jagat Pal with the police. According to OP No.1, there is no carelessness or negligence on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. In the written statement filed by OP No.2, it has been admitted that a Registered Letter No.8604 was booked by OP No.1 from GPO Chandigarh on 09.11.2010 to be delivered to the complainant. It is also admitted that the said registered letter was lost from the custody of the Area Postman namely Sh. Jagat Pal of Sector 47 Post Office and a DDR No.5 dated 10.12.2010 was lodged by the said Postman. OP No.2 referred to Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1989 as per which the Government shall not incur any liability of damage of the article in course of transmission by post, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation under the rules. According to OP No.2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. 6. Admittedly, the cheque in question was sent by OP No.1 Bank to the complainant under registered post through OP No.2. It is also not disputed that the said cheque was lost by the concerned Postman, who also got DDR registered with the police. It is also the admitted case of the parties that a sum of Rs.100/- was paid to the complainant by OP No.2 as compensation on account of loss of his cheque. 7. The only dispute in this case pertains to the quantum of compensation to which the complainant is entitled. 8. The case of OP No.2 is that it enjoys a complete immunity for any liability of damage of the article in course of transmission by post and therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation. Section 6 of 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 by 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. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that this question has very well been settled by the Hon’ble Andhara Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case titled The Post Master and Anr. and D. Hanuman @ Hanuman Singhdecided vide order dated 27.07.2009. There were two appeals before the Hon’ble Andhara Pradesh State Commission, one bearing No.237 of 2007 filed by the Postal Department and the other bearing No.1345 of 2006 filed by the complainant arising out of order passed by District Forum, Warangal in complaint case No.82 of 2005. In the case before the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission, the demand drafts, which were sent through registered post, did not reach the addressee. The Postal Department has taken a plea that for wrong delivery or loss of any article, it is liable to pay Rs.100/- as compensation. After barely discussing the provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act as well as Scheme of Speed Post as has been provided under Indian Post office Rules of 1933 by inserting Rule 66B, the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission observed that the liability of the Postal Department is restricted under the provisions of Rule 8-CA(III) of Schedule XIII of schedule of financial powers, which is Rs.100/- only in case wrong delivery or loss of any article. Thus, the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the Postal Department and dismissed the complaint. However, the appeal filed by the complainant was also dismissed. 10. The ratio of the above cited judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In the present case also, the cheque in question was sent through registered post, which did not reach the complainant. A compensation of Rs.100/- was paid to the complainant by OP No.2 for the loss of the registered letter, which he admittedly accepted. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law settled by the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission in the case titled The Post Master and Anr. and D. Hanuman @ Hanuman Singh (Supra), we are of the considered view that the complainant has been compensated by the OPs in accordance with their governing financial instructions. 11. In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the present complaint, the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 9th May, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II C.C.No.327 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 08.05.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 09.05.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
