Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/55/2016

Natwar Steel Pvt Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Mohan Lal Singh

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                                             Consumer Complaint No.55 of 2016

                                                                                                                         Date of institution:  23.05.2016                        

                                                                                                                          Date of decision   :  02.06.2017

Natwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory Sh. Shiv Kumar, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary Post and Telegraph Department, New   Delhi.
2.         The Chief Post Master General Punjab Region, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
3.         The Post Master/Incharge, Post Office, Mandi Gobindgarh.

          …..Opposite parties      

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

         

Present :      Sh. M.L.Singhi, Adv. Cl. for the complainant.

                Sh. Anish Gupta, Adv.Cl. for  the opposite parties.

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant, Natwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory Sh. Shiv Kumar, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainant had sent valuable clothes through registered parcel through OP No.3 to Ms. Mamta d/o Sh.Jagdish Sagar Colony Ram Raj, Pincode No.251320, Muzzafar Nagar(U.P.) as a gift, vide receipt No.ACP 130302682 dated 26.12.2015. The amount of Rs.68/- was charged by OP No.3 as booking charges for the same. The said parcel was to be delivered within reasonable time but OPs failed to deliver the same till date. The complainant made complaint through e-mail, which was registered as complaint No.10006702983. The complainant also lodged complaint with the Post Master General and  the Director, Postal Services, Punjab Region, Chandigarh but all in vain. The complainant also visited OPs No. 2 & 3 many times but they had been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The act and conduct of the OPs amount to negligence in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.6000/- the costs of the articles, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and humiliation and Rs.12,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint, OPs raised preliminary objection that the complainant has no legal right or any cause of action to file the present complaint  and the same is liable to be dismissed. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that a packet of undisclosed articles/materials weighing 1337 gms was booked vide registered parcel No.CP130302682IN at Mandi Gobindgarh Sub Post Office on 26.12.2015. An amount of Rs.68/- was charged and receipt was issued to the complainant for its booking. The OPs further stated that it was the duty of the complainant to disclose about the contents of the said parcel, if it was containing any valuable material/article in it and if so then the same should be got insured at the time of booking, so that if any loss occurred to the article during transit, the complainant could be compensated by the OPs. But the complainant had not done it. The complainant himself has been negligent and careless and thus responsible for any alleged loss, if any, suffered by him.  The OPs or any of its officials are not at all responsible for the non-delivery of the parcel to the addressee, so far. OPs have already made the search for the lost parcel, by doing step-by-step inquiry and it was detected that the parcel was lost in transit between Muzaffar Nagar RMS and Muzaffar Nagar Head Office. Therefore, the compensation form had been sent to the complainant so that compensation amounting to Rs.100/- may be paid to him as per departmental norms.  As per statutory rules & regulations and provisions of Clause 172 & 173 of Post Office Guide Part-I, it has been made clear that the valuable articles should be posted as insured article and insurance covers all the risks in the course of transmission by post. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence copy of postal receipt Ex. C-1, letter dated 04.01.2016 Ex. C-2, copy of letter dated 12.01.2016 Ex. C-3, postal receipts Ex. C-4 & C-5, copy of online complaint Ex. C-6, courier receipt Ex. C-7, copy of letter dated 07.01.2016 Ex. C-8, copy of resolution Ex. C-9, affidavit of Shiv Kumar Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence attested copies of documents i.e. parcel list Ex. OP-1, letter dated 18.01.2016 Ex. OP-2, relevant statutory provisions of clause 172 & 173 of post office guide part -1 Ex. OP-3, affidavit of Sh. S.D.Sheikh, Superintendent, Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant stated that it is an admitted fact that the OPs were not able to deliver the clothes weighing 1337 gms to the addressee. He pleaded that it is ample clear from the written version of the OPs that the articles were misplaced by the OPs due to their negligent act. Learned counsel argued that the complainant deserves to be compensated for the deficiency in service committed by the OPs.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that its officials cannot be held responsible for the non-delivery of the parcel to the addressee. He stated that OPs had already made the search for the lost parcel, by doing step-by-step inquiry and it was found that the parcel was lost in transit between Muzaffar Nagar RMS and Muzaffar Nagar Head Office. Learned counsel argued that as per statutory rules & regulations and provisions of Clause 172 & 173 of Post Office Guide Part-I the officials cannot be held liable. He further argued that the requisite refund  form had been sent to the complainant under the provisions of  Post Office Guide Part-I for payment of Rs.100/- as compensation but he refused to sign it. The Ld. counsel further prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.

7.             After hearing the Learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence, written arguments and oral submissions, we are of the view that it is clearly established from copy of postal receipt Ex. C-1, letter dated 04.01.2016 Ex. C-2, copy of letter dated 12.01.2016 Ex. C-3, postal receipts Ex. C-4 & C-5, copy of online complaint Ex. C-6, courier receipt Ex. C-7, copy of letter dated 07.01.2016 Ex. C-8, that the articles/clothes were misplaced and therefore the same could not be delivered to the addressee. This fact has been admitted by the OPs. OPs cannot seek protection under the statutory rules & regulations and provisions of Clause 172 & 173 of Post Office Guide Part-I, as the officials of the OPs were also duty bound to seek explanation from the complainant as to what articles weighing 1337 gms were being sent through them. We are of the opinion that OPs have committed deficiency in service by non- delivery of articles/cloths and thereby misplacing the same. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs the complainant had to undergo  unnecessary mental as well as physical harassment. 

8.             It has come to our notice that the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as M/S.Transport Corporation of India Versus M/S.Veljan Hydrair Ltd, Appeal(Civil) 3096 of 2005, Date of Decision 22-02-2007, has observed in para no. 13:

“loss of goods or injury to goods or non-delivery of goods, entrusted to a common carrier for carriage, would amount to a deficiency of service and, therefore, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be maintainable. When a person entrusts a goods to a common carrier for transportation and the carrier accepts the same, there is a contract for "service", within the meaning of CP Act. Therefore, when the goods are not delivered, there is a deficiency of service”.

 

9.              Accordingly, in view of our aforestated observation and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case M/S.Transport Corporation of India Versus M/S.Veljan Hydrair Ltd(Supra), we find OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence we direct OPs to fix the responsibility and to pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- price of the clothes/articles lost to the complainant. We also find complainant is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.3000/- on account of mental agony caused due to act and conduct of OPs alongwith 2500/- Litigation expenses.

10.          We further direct the OPs to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case OPs fails to comply with the order within the stipulated time mentioned above, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % p.a on the awarded amount. The present complaint stands allowed.          

11.                    The arguments on the complaint were heard on 19.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room

Pronounced

Dated: 02.06.2017

 

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                   (Inder Jit)

                                                                                   Member