Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Kuldeep Singh Chouhan has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is director of the company M/s.Shree Salasar Balaji Jeweler (P) Limited and the said business is only source of income for the livelihood of the complainant as well as his family members. The complainant is doing the business of goldsmith. The complainant sent certain gold ornaments to Mumbai for its repair/ refinishing  in a parcel through Indian Post, but the said parcel did not deliver to the receiver and the same is lost during the transit. Said business of the complainant has been secured with the insurance policy of the Opposite Parties, which he had been renewing since the year 2010 from time to time and till date the said business of the complainant and his gold ornaments are insured with the Opposite Parties under their various policies. For the purpose of repair and refinishing of certain 22 CT gold ornaments, weighing 50.220 m.gram, approximate value of Rs.145638/-+ 10% extra Rs.14564/- as per policy, the complainant sent certain gold ornaments in a registered parcel/ speed post to M/s.A.U.Finja Jewels, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai and booked the same through post office, Guru Bazaar, Amritsar vide receipt dated 13.5.2014, but the said parcel did not deliver to the said party by the postal department and it was lateron declared by the Department of Posts O/O Manager, National Sorting Hub, Amritsar vide letter dated 18.7.2014 that the said parcel has been lost in transit. Said parcel of the articles lost by the postal department in transit, were duly insured with the Opposite Parties under the insurance policy renewed by them from time to time, as such the Opposite Parties are legally liable to settle the claim of the lost items in question. The complainant lodged his claim of the lost item with the Opposite Parties and provided all the relevant documents with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties finally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 19.6.2015.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may kindly be ordered to release the amount of lost items i.e. Rs.145638/-+ 10% extra Rs.14564/-  as per policy alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

b)      Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.

c)       Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled under the law and equity may also be awarded to him. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing  joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that admittedly, the complainant booked the parcel in question through Guru Bazaar, Amritsar on insured registered parcel on 13.5.2014 vide receipts from Amritsar to Mumbai. Said consignment lost during the transit and not delivered to its destination. The complainant lodged a complaint with the department of post regarding the loss of consignment in the transit, regarding which the department of post office vide their letter dated 18.7.2014 informed the complainant that the article was received at Palam TMO, New Delhi and further dispatched to Mumbai NSH, but as per the Mumbai SPC the same has not been received by Mumbai NSH hence the article has appeared to be lost in transit. The department of post office requested the claimant to fill the claim form and submit the same alongwith original receipts of article to their office. It was declared that the value of the registered parcel containing the articles worth Rs.1000/- only for each parcel.  The insured has not disclosed to the post office at the time of booking the detail of the consignment and detail of articles packed in the parcel declaring the value of parcel is Rs.1000/- only. The complainant has adopted the deceptive method to book the parcel because if he has declared the contents to post office, then the money charged by the department would have been very high for the insured registered parcel. As per the India Post Department rule parcel is containing gold coin, bullion currency notes or bank notes are not insured for the actual value of the contents and will not be accepted for dispatch and the insured value expressed in Indian Currency should be written on the parcel in ink in words in roman lettering and in figure in Arabic Numerals at the top of the address side.  The present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties because the consignment was booked with the India Post Office and the same was lost during the transit while in the custody of Indian Post Office as such, the Indian Post Office is necessary party and the said department is only liable to pay any loss to the complainant, but the complainant has intentionally not made the Indian Post Office as party in the present complaint because he was well in the knowledge that he has declared the value of the parcel Rs.1000/- each and he can only claim Rs.1000/- for his each parcel from the said department. As such, the complaint lodged against Opposite Parties is liable to be dismissed.  After receiving the information from the complainant regarding the loss of consignment during transit, the investigator was appointed who submitted his report  that the insured is misleading the insurer because the insured value of registered parcel as per the receipt of post office is Rs.1000/- for each consignment, as such the liability in lieu of the postal receipt is Rs.1000/- each and this to post office and on the basis of the report of the investigator, the Opposite Parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  On merits, the Opposite Parties took almost same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2   to Ex.C22  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sarv Daman Bhalla Ex.OP1,2,3,4/1, affidavit of Sh.Navtej Kumar, Director Ex.OP1,2,3,4/2  alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1,2,3,4/3 to Ex.OP1,2,3,4/6 and affidavit of Sh.Surinder Singh, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP1,2,3,4/7 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1,2,3,4/8 to Ex.OP1,2,3,4/15 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The  complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and averred that he is director of the company M/s.Shree Salasar Balaji Jeweler (P) Limited and the said business is only source of income for the livelihood of the complainant as well as his family members. The complainant is doing the business of goldsmith. The complainant sent certain gold ornaments to Mumbai for its repair/ refinishing  in a parcel through Indian Post, but the said parcel did not deliver to the receiver and the same is lost during the transit. Said business of the complainant has been secured with the insurance policy of the Opposite Parties, which he had been renewing since the year 2010 from time to time and till date the said business of the complainant and his gold ornaments are insured with the Opposite Parties under their various policies. For the purpose of repair and refinishing of certain 22 CT gold ornaments, weighing 50.220 m.gram, approximate value of Rs.145638/-+ 10% extra Rs.14564/- as per policy, the complainant sent certain gold ornaments in a registered parcel/ speed post to M/s.A.U.finja Jewels, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai  and booked the same through post office, Guru Bazaar, Amritsar vide receipt dated 13.5.2014, but the said parcel did not deliver to the said party by the postal department and it was lateron declared by the Department of Posts O/O Manager, National Sorting Hub, Amritsar vide letter dated 18.7.2014 that the said parcel has been lost in transit. Said parcel of the articles lost by the postal department in transit, were duly insured with the Opposite Parties under the insurance policy renewed by them from time to time, as such the Opposite Parties are legally liable to settle the claim of the lost items in question. The complainant lodged his claim of the lost item with the Opposite Parties and provided all the relevant documents with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties finally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 19.6.2015.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that admittedly, the complainant booked the parcel in question through Guru Bazaar, Amritsar on insured registered parcel on 13.5.2014 vide receipts from Amritsar to Mumbai. Said consignment lost during the transit and not delivered to its destination. The complainant lodged a complaint with the department of post regarding the loss of consignment in the transit, regarding which the department of post office vide their letter dated 18.7.2014 informed the complainant that the article was received at Palam TMO, New Delhi and further dispatched to Mumbai NSH, but as per the Mumbai SPC the same has not been received by Mumbai NSH hence the article has appeared to be lost in transit. The department of post office requested the claimant to fill the claim form and submit the same alongwith original receipts of article to their office. It was declared that the value of the registered parcel containing the articles worth Rs.1000/- only for each parcel.  The insured has not disclosed to the post office at the time of booking the detail of the consignment and detail of articles packed in the parcel declaring the value of parcel is Rs.1000/- only. The complainant has adopted the deceptive method to book the parcel because if he has declared the contents to post office, then the money charged by the department would have been very high for the insured registered parcel. As per the India Post Department rule parcel is containing gold coin, bullion currency notes or bank notes are not insured for the actual value of the contents and will not be accepted for dispatch and the insured value expressed in Indian Currency should be written on the parcel in ink in words in Roman lettering and in figure in Arabic Numerals at the top of the address side.  The present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties because the consignment was booked with the India Post Office and the same was lost during the transit while in the custody of Indian Post Office as such, the Indian Post Office is necessary party and the said department is only liable to pay any loss to the complainant, but the complainant has intentionally not made the Indian Post Office as party in the present complaint because he was well in the knowledge that he has declared the value of the parcel Rs.1000/- each and he can only claim Rs.1000/- for his each parcel from the said department. As such, the complaint lodged against Opposite Parties is liable to be dismissed.  After receiving the information from the complainant regarding the loss of consignment during transit, the investigator was appointed who submitted his report  that the insured is misleading the insurer because the insured value of registered parcel as per the receipt of post office is Rs.1000/- for each consignment, as such the liability in lieu of the postal receipt is Rs.1000/- each and this to post office and on the basis of the report of the investigator, the Opposite Parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

8.       It is not the denial of the parties that the complainant booked the parcel in question through Guru Bazaar, Amritsar on insured registered parcel on 13.5.2014 vide receipts from Amritsar to Mumbai. It is also not denied that said consignment has been lost during the transit and not delivered to its destination. The complainant lodged a complaint with the department of post regarding the loss of consignment in the transit, regarding which the department of post office vide their letter dated 18.7.2014 informed the complainant that the article was received at Palam TMO, New Delhi and further dispatched to Mumbai NSH, but as per the Mumbai SPC the same has not been received by Mumbai NSH hence the article has appeared to be lost in transit. Perusal of the file shows that there is no privity of contract of the complainant with the Opposite Parties because the complainant has booked the parcel, if any, with the postal department to whom; he has not made party in the instant complaint. Without impleading the Postal Department as party, we can not reach at the just conclusion  to assess the loss occasioned by the complainant  during transit. Moreover, the complainant has allegedly paid the fee for booking the parcel in question, if any to the postal department, then if any loss is occurred during transit, the postal department must be a necessary party. Moreover, it is nowhere mentioned or alleged  in the insurance policy, that if any loss is occurred during the transit in the hands of the postal department, then the Opposite Parties would be liable for the same. Moreover, there is no direct privity of contract of complainant with the Opposite Parties for the loss occurred  in the hands of the postal department to the complainant.  In our considered view, the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties because the consignment was booked with the India Post Office and the same was lost during the transit while in the custody of Indian Post Office as such, the Indian Post Office must be a necessary party.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the present complaint is dismissed for want of post office as necessary party.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum