ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in not handing over the articles booked at Bangalore at destination, loss of the articles booked for delivery, and for payment of the cost of the material sent along with compensation and legal consultation fee and for damages for causing mental agony, loss of peace and for negligence and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; the complainant is residing in Bangalore pursuing IAS study with BYJU’s IAS  programme. She joined the course with Byju’s and they had provided a TAB costing Rs.69,000/- with study materials, for which she has paid the amount and wanted to prepare herself. Due to her personal reasons she had to send the said Tab to her friend in Assam, so that the books mentioned in the programme shall be purchased by her and send to her. The said TAB along with mobile phone MOTO G-6 phone Indigo Black colour 3+32 GB with Turbo charger was sent to her friend at Assam through registered Article by post through OP-3 , the post master at Yelahanka Old Town under registration No. CK 702907622IN and IVR6775702907622 dated 13.01.2021 at 12.05 with a special request to handle with care containing the said items weighing 790 grams and paid a sum of Rs.52 as the registered article charges.  The articles were sent by Op-3 to Silapthar Station Office, Assam. She was tracking the movement of the said articles online.  On 20.01.2020 the online indicator that the said articles have reached Gowhati PH. Afterwards, there was no indication or intimation regarding the movement of the said articles and also no further update of the said articles reaching Silapthar Sub-Office. She made an enquiry with OP-3 who suggested to make a complaint online and on 11.02.2021, she made a complaint over online with reference No.2000746325. It was intimated that the said article reached Guwahati PH and on opening the bag, there were only 17 articles out of 22 articles in the said bag whereas other 5 items were missing. Series of correspondences were made with the OPs who time and again informed that only 17 articles out of 22 articles were received at Assam and the article sent by the complainant is missing in the transit. 

3.     Due to the said loss of the article which is purely due to the negligent act of the OP she could not access to the TAB and could not do well in the IAS exam. Her personal and professional details were also in the said TAB.  Inspite of making several complaints and waiting for more time as per the directions and request from OP, the same was not traced and handed over to her and also the claim with the OP not settled. Inspite of it, issuing the notice also, the same was not traced and given to her or to delivered the person to whom it was sent.  The cost of the TAB is Rs.69,000/-, the cost of mobile phone Rs.9,650/- postal charges Rs.52/- corresponding charges for filing the complainant to OP Rs.250/- and cost of filing of this complaint Rs.650/- and cost for preparing the materials Rs.5,000/-, consultation fee and legal aid received from the advocate Rs.85,000/- , loss of study and preparation of Central Services examination Rs.5,00,000/- and a compensation of Rs.3,00,000-/- towards suffering mental agony torture by the OP in not answering the queries and negligent attitude are to be paid by the OP.  OPs have failed to discharge their obligation which is a sheer negligence and deficiency in service and hence prayed the commission to allow the complaint and award the claim along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of booking of material for transit.

4.     Upon the service of notice OP-1, 2 and 3 appeared before the forum through their advocate and filed version contending that OP is a service rendering organization and not a commercial business organization. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and has filed on illegal, vexatious, frivolous fabricated and created reasons which lacks merits, bona-fideness and liable to be dismissed . 

5.     Further it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and this commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint as it is a recovery proceeding only to  be filed before the regular Civil Court and further the damage caused is to be enquired by a detailed investigation which cannot be done in a summary proceedings.  The parcel weighing 790 grams was booked on 13.01.2021 from Yelahanka Post Office in the name of PS Nitesh Estate addressed to one Manish Sharma, Silapthar Station Office, Assam pin code 787059 and the consumer has paid Rs.52/- to avail the services . As per the departmental rules the sender of the article or the receiver of the complaint can only lodge a complaint or seek delivery particular of the articles booked as it is fiduciary relationship between the parties. In this case, complainant is neither the receiver nor the sender of the article. Further as per the post office guidelines part I Rule 172 enables insurance of valuable returns and parcels upto Rs.10,000/-. On a conjoint reading of Section 6 of the post office Act exemption from liability for loss delay /damage along with Rule 170, it is evident that only an exgretia amount of payment of Rs.100/-. Can be paid by the head of the circle in case of loss of a parcel and no compensation based upon the value of the parcel is payable unless the parcel is duly insured in terms of rule 172 in which case, the value of the insured article is to be restricted to Rs.10,000/-.

6.     In this case the complainant did not get her parcel insured at the time it was delivered to the postal authorities for transit to the destination. Hence compensation to the sender of the registered parcel to the extent of Rs.100/- only in respect of loss of register letter or contents having intrinsic value is payable. It is further contended that as per the provisions of 30 and 31 of the Indian Post office act 1878, complainant did not insured registered parcel not doing her part of duty as contemplated in terms of the provisions of Indian Post office Act. Hence she cannot take advantage of her own wrong. The contents of the registered parcel was never declared by the sender at the time of booking the article and the post office was not aware about the contents of the said parcel. Secondly the said parcel was not insured.  If the sender had insured said article at the time of booking, the postal authority would have collected the insurance premium for the insurance of the article.  If the article is valuable, the sender should have sent the article through authorized insured post. 

7.     Section 30 and 33 of the post office Act provide the provision for insurance of valuable to cover the risk and damage, during the course of transmission of postal items.  But the sender herself has been careless and now OP cannot be held guilty for her mistake.  If the contents of the article were declared at the time of booking, the counter booking clerk would have suggested to opt for insurance of the items.

8.     It is contended that RMSGH at Guwahati on 25.02.2021 held an enquiry at their end and revealed that on opening the bag on 20.01.2021 out of 22 articles, it received only 17 articles from the bag. The error noted by PH Guwahati as per the Departmental Rules and Regulation. As the article was lost in transit, and complainant was requested to apply for compensation as per the rules.  Denying all the other allegations made in each every para of the complaint prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

9.     In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

10.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 :   In the affirmative

POINT NO.2 :   Partly in the affirmative

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

11.   On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by  both the parties, it becomes clear and also admitted by OP that the complainant handed over a parcel weighing 790 grams to be transported to Silapthar Station Office, Assam to her friend through OP-3. Though it is contended that the complainant is not the person who has handed over the articles as per the postal receipt which in the name M/s Nitesh Estates the correspondences that had taken place between the parties which has been produced, in nowhere, OP has taken the contention that the complainant is not a consumer or the person who has handed over the above articles to be parceled to Silapthar Station Office, Assam. A sum of Rs.52/- has been collected by OP for parceling the said articles to the destination from the complainant and it is duly registered. 

12.   It is also admitted by OP that on 20.01.2021 when the bag containing the parcel were opened at Guwahati PH, it was found only 17 articles against the 22 articles loaded in the said baggage.  It is also clear from the correspondences made and intimation given to the complainant by the OPs, that the said articles sent by registered parcel from Bangalore has not reached Silapthar Station Office, Assam the destination, and the said articles were “lost in transit.” When such being the case, it is the clear case of negligence and dereliction of duty and carelessness of OPs. Further it is the duty of the OP being a service provider for a price/charge, to fulfill its responsibility of handing over the registered articles to the addressee to whom the said articles were ment to be handed over. It cannot brush aside its responsibility stating that the articles have been lost in transit.  OP has not at all placed any materials to show what action or investigation to locate the article and tried to hand over the same at destination. In view of this, we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT No.2

13.   In view of the above answers to point No.1, OP has to compensate the complainant for the loss it has caused to the complainant due to the parcel lost in transit.  The complainant has produced the receipt for having purchased the said article i.e. TAB, the cost of which, it is mentioned as Rs.69,000/-. Complainant has also produced the TAX invoice in respect of MOTO G6 32 GB indigo black the mobile set and also documents for having sent the same through registered parcel to the delivery location Silapthar Station Office, Assam and the articles booked through Yelahanka SO on 13.01.2021. The said item as per the documents produced reached Guwahati and afterwards it could not be traced.  Complaint has also been lodged in respect of the lost article by the complainant to the postal authorities who did not care to compensate the same whereas after filing of this complaint have come up with contention that the said articles sent for transportation has not been insured and has cited the provision of the Indian Post Office Act 1878.  According to it, under Rule 172 only maximum value payable for the articles lost in transit is Rs.10,000/- and further the Central Government is exempt from liability for loss delay or damage and it contends that only exgratia payment of Rs.100 can be given in respect of loss of registered letter/parcel/or its contents having intrinsic value.  Section 30 and 31 of the Act deals with the insurance of the articles. Though it is there in the said Act, the said Act is made in the year 1878 which is almost 150 years old the value of the property and the articles have gone a Sea change, cost of every articles and materials have gone up telescopically high, whereas the Government of India is still hanging on to the old Act of 1878 passed at the time of British Rule even though India has got independence 75 years ago and no improvement, amendment and changes have been made to the post office Act. 

14.   We have to say at this juncture that the said Post Office Act cannot be considered at this juncture, in view of the sea changes that has been taken place worldwide. In view of the loss in transit, the parcel ment to be handed over at Silapthar Station Office, Assam destination, and as the complainant has produced sufficient documents to show the value of the said articles, we are of the firm opinion that OPs are bound to pay the values of the said amount as it has failed to deliver the said articles at destination. 

15.   Further though the complainant has sought for damages, litigation expenses and other charges to the extent of Rs.9,62,602/- she has not placed sufficient materials to show really that she has incurred legal expenses, consultation charges to the extent of Rs.85,000/- and further Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of study materials and not getting through her preliminary exams of IAS, and further Rs.3,00,000/- towards sufferance of mental agony and torture.  No doubt the complainant has been put to more inconvenience and mental torture and agony due to the non-reaching of the articles at the destination. Hence we are of the opinion that, if a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for suffering mental agony, physical and mental stress,  and further a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses and expenses towards notice correspondences and seeking legal advise besides cost of the material with interest would be just and proper under the circumstances. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following :

ORDER

1. The Complaint is partly allowed with cost.
2. OP No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.78,650/- being the cost of the goods/materials to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of booking the parcel articles i.e. on 13.01.2021   till payment of the entire amount.
3. OP No.1 to 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and strain and further Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report on this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 16^th day of SEPTEMBER 2022)

MEMBER           MEMBER       PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Receipt issued by OP for having paid the amount.

Ex P2: Copy of the complaint given by complainant to the post master Yelahanka post office

Ex. P3: Copy of the letter written by senior superintendent of post to the senior Superintendent of RMS

Ex P4: Copy of the letter written by the Asst. Director II (PG) to the Senior Superintendent of Post office.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Satish BP, PRIP (Postal) of OP-1 to 3.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the authorization letter.

Ex R2: Copy of the letter of booking details

MEMBER         MEMBER       PRESIDENT

RAK*