Filed on :25.08.2014

Disposed on.23.11.2016

BEFORE THE BANGALORE URBAN II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560027

DATED THIS THE  23^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 1508/2014

PRESENT: 

KUM. T. SHOBHADEVI, M.A., LL.B.,        …. PRESIDENT

SMT V.ANURADHA B.A., LL.B.,                ….  MEMBER

V/S

ORDER

BY KUM. T. SHOBHADEVI, PRESIDENT

     This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.      The brief facts of the case is that,

The complainant is a senior citizen and a retired central Government Officer.  He sent some items to his son who is staying in New York city in a Carton box, provided and attached by the GPO Bangalore. It was a registered parcel bearing No.CK000576IN sent on 02.06.2014.  The items were packed by the staff of the parcel counter and sealed in his presence and sent by registered parcel to Mr.Karthik Krishnamurthy, Ernst and Young, 5 Times Sqare-NY, New York-10036. Contact No.19739326776/email ID karthikmitra@hotmail.com.  The items sent are

3.  This parcel was dispatched on 02.06.2014 and it will be delivered within 10 days as per the information of the staff. Later on, the complainant was informed that, sometimes it will take three weeks.  When complainant contacted over phone Smt.Bhanu told him that as per website it is the parcel has been delivered on 10^th June 2014.  Immediately it was ascertained from his son that the parcel has not been delivered to the right person. Complainant asked to register a complaint with the India Post, which was registered on 23^rd June 2014(No.10057/60251).  The staff informed the complainant that due to internet problem they were unable to obtain information from Mumbai, however they informed the complainant that they would contact him as and when any information is received from Mumbai Post Office, in the meantime, complainant’s son contacted the complainant frequently and informed him that he has not received the parcel because medicines were kept and he could not use it when it required, so he has to suffer, also the cloths and some other food items would not be used for the purpose for which they have sent.  Complainant sent a detailed email to CPMG and used to contact frequently over phone.  On July 8-9 an email reminder was sent by the complainant.  In response to that Smt. Bhanu asked the complainant some details about the contents of the parcel amount paid and weight of the parcel which were given on July 11^th 2014.   The GPO took the matter with Mumbai International to produce the PoD.  It was ascertained from the GPO that the case is REINDEXED with number 56001-14828 with Mumbai Foreign Post Office.  This was confirmed by an email dated 30^th July 2014 by the Assistant Director of Postal Service, Foreign Post Office, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001.  Again GPO asked the complainant to send the copies of the postal receipts and items and its value in their letter dated 14^th August 2014 by speed post.  The complainant furnished all the details by email on 18^th August 2014. Till today Indian Postal Department has not been able to trace the registered parcel and has not delivered it to the right person even after two months.  Hence this complaint.

3.  Upon service of notice, OP appeared and filed its version, stating that the registered parcel was booked regarding the contents, the copy of the Customer Declaration in respect of the parcel under reference is not legible and hence a request has been sent to Mumbai Foreign to forward a legible copy.  The value of the items can be actually ascertained only on receipt of the copy of the customs declaration from Mumbai Foreign.  However no intrinsic value can be assigned on documents like Driving License, which is claimed to have been sent by the complainant inside the parcel as claimed by him in his complaint. The parcel has been sent to the address of Ernst and Young, 5 Times Sqare, NY New York 10036, which is an office address and not the residence of Karthik Krishnamurthy, the address of the parcel under the reference.  It is a fact that the parcel was properly packed sealed and booked at Bangalore GPO and dispatched to its destination on the same day. Enquiries made have revealed that the parcel under reference has been delivered by the US Postal Authority on 10.06.2014 as per the update given on IPS web tracking. However the signature of the recipient appearing on POD is not clear.  The Mumbai Foreign has once again approached US postal administration furnishes the clear copy of the POD which is awaited. The enquiry was made from the complainant by this office.  On receipt of request to this effect from Mumbai Foreign PO and after getting the details from the complainant, same were forwarded to Mumbai Foreign by this OP, vide letter No.CCC/BG PO/OW pending/13-14 dated 13.08.2014. The parcel under reference has been correctly booked and dispatched to its destination. Further as per the report of US postal administration, received through Mumbai Foreign, the parcel under reference has been delivered on 10.06.2014.  Since the complainant is claiming non delivery of the said parcel, the matter has been again taken up by Mumbai Foreign with US Postal Authorities for supply of clear copy of proof of delivery and a reply was due on 23.09.2014.  As per the reply received from Mumbai Foreign, it is intimated that US Postal Administration vide their reply dated 23.09.2014 has accepted liability against parcel and the amount of claim admitted would be intimated shortly for information and satisfaction of the complainant.  The OP has taken prompt action to register the same and pursued it at appropriate level including escalating the matter to the higher authority for speeding up the action. The complainant ought to have insured the goods by comprehensive insurance and ought to have claimed from the insurance company.  US postal authority is a necessary party, hence complaint is to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties.  The complainant has not declared the goods articles before customs authority, therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.  Perused the documents furnished by both the parties. Arguments are heard.

5.  The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?
3. What order and relief?

6.  Our answers to the above points:

1. Point No.1  :         In the Affirmative
2. Point No. 2 :         In the Affirmative
3. Point No. 3 :         As per final order for the following;

REASONS

     7.      POINT NO. 1 AND 2;

There is no dispute regarding the registered parcel booked under number CK005763319N at Bangalore GPO on 02.06.2014.  The dispute is regarding the delivery of the parcel, items and value of the items.  In proof of his case, complainant has produced only copies of some emails and letter of the department of Posts, India.  Complainant has not produced any authenticated document regarding the items sent or its value.  Without any such document it is not possible to ascertain the item sent or the value of the items.  Complainant has not produced the copy of the customs declaration from Mumbai Foreign, as rightly pointed out by the OP in his version.  Complainant’s claim is two lakhs for the value of the valid permanent driving license.  Without any authenticated document regarding the copies of the documents sent or its value, the value of the driving license cannot be ascertained. According to both the parties, the parcel in question was properly packed and sealed and booked at Bangalore and dispatched to its destination, but according to the complainant, it is not dispatched to his son. OP has not produced any documents to show that the parcel is delivered to a certain particular person, he simply mentioned in his version that he enclosed certain documents along with his version, but no single document is produced before the Forum to ascertain the true facts.  According to the complainant, the GPO asked him to send the copies of postal receipt and item sent and its value in their letter dated 14^th August 2014 by speed post and the complainant furnish all the details by email on 18^th August 2014.  However, complainant failed to produce such documents which were sent by email on 18.08.2014 before the Forum to ascertain the items and its value, atleast by that email.  Therefore, complainant could not prove the value of the item sent which is claimed by him.  Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. According to the OP complainant failed to make the US postal authority as a necessary party, this contention is not acceptable.  Because the complainant has registered his parcel from Bangalore, therefore complaint cannot be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. According to OP Mumbai Foreign has once again approached US postal administration to furnish the clear copy of the POD which is awaited. Anyhow, OP could not produce any clarification regarding the matter to whom the parcel has been delivered during the pendency of the complaint. Hence it amounts to deficiency on the part of the OP. Therefore the complainant could prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Without any document regarding the exact items sent and its value no intrinsic value can be ascertained assigned for the document like Driving License and other item sent claimed by the complainant. Hence the complaint is partly allowed.  Even though OP has furnished copies of Judgement it is not applicable to the present case.  Hence we answer the above Point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.

8.      POINT NO.3:- In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is allowed.

The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards the relief.

OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the mental agony.

OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the litigation expenses.

OP is directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Send copy of the order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her/him and corrected and then pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of November 2016)

MEMBER                           PRESIDENT