Punjab

Sangrur

CC/380/2016

Tarlochan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Nandpuri

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                       

                                                        Complaint no. 380                                                                                         

                                                        Instituted on:   05.05.2016                                    

                                                        Decided on:    03.11.2016

 

Tarlochan Singh son of Krishan Singh, r/o Village Kuthala, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Posts, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

2.     Sub Postmaster, Post Office College Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

3.     Supdt. Post Office, Sangrur Postal Division, Sangrur Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri  G.S.Nandpuri, Adv.                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES         :     Shri Rattan Verma,  Adv.                         

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

     

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Tarlochan Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 29.02.2016 he sent a parcel to his relative namely Gagandeep Singh Rikhy c/o Jamana Printers Ltd. Plot No.9, Nyerere Road (Pugu Road)  P.B. No.5584, Dares Salaam, Tanzania through OP No.2 and paid  an amount of Rs.1641/-  vide receipt dated 29.02.2016.  The said parcel did not reach at its destination then the complainant made an application dated 28.03.2016 to OP No.2  for inquire about the reasons  for not delivering the said parcel.  Then the OP No.2 returned the said parcel by saying that the same could not be delivered  because of address  on the parcel  has been washed due to fallen of water on it.  The said act of OPs is clearly negligence on the part of OPs. The complainant requested the OPs no.2 and 3 to refund the amount of Rs.1641/-  but the OPs refused to accede the request of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund of Rs.1641/- charged by them alongwith interest @18% per annum from 29.02.2016 till its payment,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

 

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objection on the ground of maintainability has been taken up. On merits, it is stated that the said parcel was despatched to Ludhiana RMS on same day i.e. 29.02.2016. The complainant lodged  a complaint regarding non delivery of parcel dated 28.03.2016 which was transferred to Delhi Foreign post and Delhi foreign post by their reply dated 30.03.2016 intimated that the parcel  was returned back on 11.03.2016 to SPM Malerkotla due to non-availability of  address of the addressee and parcel under reference was returned to the sender  and delivered the same to sender on 2.4.2016. It is wrong that the address mentioned  on the parcel has been washed due to the fallen of water  on the address. There is no negligence on the part of the OPs and there is no fault of officials of the OPs. 

3.             The complainant in his  evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed evidence.

4.             It is not in dispute that the complainant booked a registered parcel at Gagandeep Singh Rikhy c/o Jamana Printers Ltd. Plot No.9 Nyerere Road ( Pugu Road) P.B. No.5584, Dares Salaam, Tanzania from CR Malerkotla  on 29.02.2016  and paid a postage charges of Rs.1641/-. The controversy in this case is regarding the non-delivery of the said parcel to the addressee.

5.             In this regard, the OPs case is that the said parcel was despatched to Ludhiana RMS on 29.02.2016. The complainant lodged a complaint regarding non-delivery of parcel to the addressee on 28.03.2016 with SPM CR Malerkotla which was further transferred  to Delhi foreign post and Delhi foreign post  vide their reply dated 30.03.2016 intimated that  the parcel under reference was returned back on 11.03.2016 to SPM Malerkotla  due to non-availability of address of the addressee and the parcel was returned to the sender and delivered to him on 2.4.2016 and as such there is no deficiency  or negligence on the  part of the OPs.

6.             We have carefully perused the documents produced on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. We seen the wrapper/ cloth Ex.C-4 (produced by the complainant)  in which the said parcel was packed and on which the address of the addressee was mentioned by the  complainant and we find that cloth is of white colour but there is some ink of different colours spread on it and one side it has been written " Address  washed out Hence RTS" .  The OPs have specifically denied in their written reply that the address mentioned  on the parcel has been washed due to fallen of water on the address rather the OPs have stated in the reply that  parcel under reference was  returned back on 11.03.2016  due to non-availability of  address of the addressee.  We feel that it is matter of common knowledge that if the address of addressee was not mentioned by the complainant on the parcel  then OPs had not accepted the parcel and issued the receipt Ex.C-1 regarding charges of postage.  Moreover, on the said receipt Ex.C-1 the address of the addressee is clearly mentioned as " Gagandeep Singh Rikh, c/o Jamana Printers Tanzania, PIN 5584 which falsifies the stand taken by the OPs.

7.             Another aspect of the case is that it is an admission of the OPs in the reply that the parcel in reference was delivered back to the sender on 02.04.2016 though it was received from the Delhi foreign post/office on 11.03.2016. We find that despite receipt of the parcel from the Delhi foreign office on 11.03.2016 the same was delivered back to the complainant on 02.04.2016 i.e. after elapse of a long period of 21 days which also clearly deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.      

 

8.             In light of facts stated above, we find it is clear cut deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs.  Moreover the Ops have miserably failed to prove their case rather the complainant has fully proved his case. We find merit in the present complaint and as such the same is allowed. Accordingly, we direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to refund an amount of  Rs.1641/- which was charged from the complainant as postage charge . We further direct the OPs to pay an  amount of Rs.5,000/- being compensation on account of deficiency in service, mental pain, harassment and an amount of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                         

                        Announced

                        November 3, 2016

 

 

( Sarita Garg)                                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                              

    Member                                                 President

 

 

 

BBS/-