DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 25/02/2020
CC 35/2020
1. Velayudhan,
S/O,Kuttappa,
Palakkal House,
Akalur, P.O, Perur Via,
Ottappalam, Palakkad -679 302.
2. Sarath, P.V
S/O Velayudhan,
Palakkal House,
Akalur, P O, Perur Via,
Ottappalam, Palakad -679 302.
(By Advocate M. R. Manikantan ) - Complainants
V/s
1. Union of India
Represented by Secretary,
Department Of Communication &
Information Technology,
New Delhi.
2. The Superintendent,
Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ottappalam Division,
Ottappalam – 679 101.
3. The Post Master,
Perur Post Office,
Perur, Ottappalam, Palakkad -679 302.
(By Advocate Suseel.M.Menon ) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
1. Subject matter of this complaint is the loss of postal article sent by the first complainant to the second complainant by speed post through the 3rd opposite party.
2. According to the complainants, the first complainant booked a parcel containing a smart phone at the third opposite party office by speed post mode for delivery at the office of the second complainant at Leh, Ladak. Since the parcel was not delivered even after a long time, the complainants made enquiries with the opposite party. It was informed that the article has been lost in transit and the complainants are entitled for an ex-gratia of Rs. 284/- as per their norms. Accordingly, the second opposite party sanctioned the amount and conveyed to the complainants.
3. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties, approached this Commission seeking a compensation of Rs 29999/- being the cost of the mobile phone lost, along with Rs. 100,000/-for deficiency in service, mental agony, loss of time & energy etc. apart from cost.
4. Notice was issued to opposite parties. The second opposite party filed version on behalf of all the opposite parties. Their contention is that the article has been lost in transit and they are liable to pay double the amount of Speed post charges as compensation in such cases and accordingly an amount of Rs. 284/- has already been sanctioned. As per Indian Post Office Act 1898, article booked at any Post Office containing any object of value should have been insured for it’s value. As per section 6 of IPO Act the department is exempted from any liability arising out of loss, miss-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in transmission by post unless it is caused by fraud or willful act.
5. Following issues are involved in this case:
- Weather the compliant is entitled to the reliefs sought for in view of existence of Section-6 of Indian Post office Act 1898 and allied Rules?
- Weather there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Reliefs, if any.
6. The complainants filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Ext. A-1 to A-4. Ext. A-1 was objected to on the ground that it will not prove the contents of the consignment in question. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit reiterating the arguments in their version, but didn't mark any documents from their side.
7. Ext. A-1 is the dispatch note of mobile phone said to have been sent as the article in question. A-2 is the Speed post receipt, A-3 is the letter from the opposite party 2 to the Complainant 1 intimating the loss of article in transit and A-4 is the sanction letter for the compensation amount of Rs. 284/.
8. Indian Postal system works as per the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and the related Rules and guidelines. In the present case, opposite parties have admitted that the article booked was sent to the addressee, but lost in transit. As per Rule 66B(5) of Indian Post Office Rules 1933, the compensation for the loss of a speed post article is double the amount of composite speed post charges or Rs. 1000/- whichever is less. Here, the speed post charges paid was Rs. 141.60 and hence eligible compensation of Rs.284/- has already been permitted.
9. As per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the Department of Posts is absolved of it's liability in the event of loss/miss-delivery of any postal article if it was not done willfully or fraudulently.
10. In the present case the complainant’s claim is that the consignment lost contained a mobile phone worth Rs. 29999/-. Hence the sender could have sent it as insured post, in which case the Opposite party would have paid the insured value to the sender.
11. Though the complainants have marked Ext. A-1 as proof of having purchased the Mobile phone in question, it doesn't prove that the article booked contained the said mobile.
12. Hence, it can be seen that the opposite parties have acted timely and properly as per the provisions of Law and there is no deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice on their part in the complaint in question
13. The complaint is therefore dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 09th day of December, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainants
Ext. A-1 - Dispatch note of mobile phone dated. 30/09/2019.
Ext. A-2 - Speed post receipt for Rs. 141.60 dated. 12/10/2019.
Ext. A-3 -Letter dated 27/11/2019 from opposite party 2 to the Complainant 1.
Ext. A-4 - Sanction letter for the compensation of Rs. 284/- dated 13/12/2019.
Documents marked from the side of Opposite parties - Nil
Witness examined - Nil.
Cost - Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
