DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 20
Instituted on: 16.01.2018
Decided on: 31.08.2018
Dr.Rina Jain wife of Dr. Surinder Kumar Jain C/o Jain Nursing Home, Near Bus Stand, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Postage, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. Superintendent, Post offices, Sangrur, Sangrur.
3. Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Sadar Bazaar, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.
For OPs : Shri S.S.Randhawa, Adv.
Quorum: Sarita Garg, Presiding Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member
1. Dr. Rina Jain, 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 brother of the complainant is residing in Canada, as such the complainant purchased medicines worth Rs.5859/- from Moon Medicos, Malerkotla for sending the same to her brother, Shri Vimal Kumar Jindal at Canada through the OPs and got booked the same through OP number 3 vide receipt dated 7.8.2017 and paid an amount of Rs.437/- as charges, which were supposed to be delivered to the addressee within a period of 10 days of its booking, but the same never reached to him. As such, the complainant again purchased medicines worth Rs.6403/- from Moon Medicos, Malerkotla and sent the same through private courier service. Now, the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs failed to send the medicines packet to the addressee nor the same were returned to the complainant, despite her best efforts. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the cost of medicine to the tune of Rs.5859/- and further to refund the amount of Rs.437/- (postal charges) and a sum of Rs.86,000/- as compensation on account of humiliation, harassment and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable under section 6 of the Indian post Office Act, that the services rendered by the post office are merely statutory, that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and that the postal charges have been obtained only for augmentation of government revenue. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got booked foreign parcel in question addressed to Shri Vimal Kumar Jindal Canada on 7.8.2017 and also paid Rs.437/- as postage charges. Further case of the Ops is that though the parcel in question was sent to the addressee, but the said Vimal Kumar Jain at Canada refused to take the delivery of the article in dispute and the same came back at the office of OP number 3 at Malerkotla on 10.2.2018 and thereafter the postal assistant of the Op contacted the complainant to get the parcel in question, but he refused to do so. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. The complainant has also filed the rejoinder to the reply of the complaint whereby the allegations levelled in the written reply have been denied and the contents of the complaint have been reiterated.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 affidavit and documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15 affidavits and copies of documents and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 3 by getting booked a parcel which was to be delivered to Shri Vimal Kumar Jindal at Canada vide receipt dated 7.8.2017 by paying the requisite amount of Rs.437/- to the OPs, which never delivered to the addressee. On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that though the same was offered to the addressee at Canada, but he refused to receive the said parcel. It is worth mentioning here that after lodging the complaint by the complainant with the Ops, the said parcel was received undelivered with the Ops on 10.2.2018 (after a period of about six months of booking with the OPs). There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the parcel was not delivered to the addressee and if was not delivered, then why it took a period of six months for getting back in India. If it was refused by the addressee to receive the parcel, then why the same was not delivered back to the complainant immediately. To support the contention, the complainant has also produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and Ex.C-3 as bill of medicine. The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended vehemently that the OPs are not only deficient in service but also are negligent by not returning the packet in question in time to the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the packet in question could not be delivered to the addressee due to refusal of the addressee and there is no fault of the OPs. But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the Ops that the addressee refused to take the delivery of the parcel, as there is no cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support such a contention rather it is a plea only to defend the case. Further the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that in view of section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, the Ops shall not incur any liability by reason of loss/mis delivery or delay or of damage to any postal articles in the course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by such reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. But, in the present case, the fact remains that the OPs failed to deliver the parcel to the addressee and further failed to return the parcel undelivered to the complainant, which was received by the OP number 3 only after filing of the complaint by the complainant. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they kept the parcel containing medicine for such a long time and why the same was not returned to the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the Ops have produced the parcel in question on record as Ex.OP-15, which was sent by the complainant to the addressee and received back undelivered. The Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in case in First Appeal No.782 of 2016 Department of Posts versus Rakesh Kumar Singla, decided on 11.5.2017 has held that section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act does not apply everywhere and in section 6 also, there are three exceptions, when the officials of the opposite parties can be made liable and those excepts are “when the loss, mis delivery, delay or damage is caused fraudulently, or by wilful act or default” and further held that it was default on the part of the officials of the opposite parties in not delivering the parcel. Further the Commission dismissed the appeal of the department of posts and upheld the order of the Forum allowing the complaint.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.437/- so charged on account of postal charges and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.
8. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
August 31, 2018.
(Sarita Garg)
Presiding Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
