Delhi

North

CC/227/2016

JITENDER RAWAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEPARTMENT OF POST INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

16 Aug 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.227/2016

In the matter of

Mr. Jitender Rawat

S/o Sh.Ashok Rawat

R/o V92/3 Arvind Nagar

Ghonda, Delhi-53                                                                                        …Complainant

                                                                                   

Versus

Department of Post  India

Post office, Tis Hazari Court

Delhi                                                                                                              ...Opposite Party-1

 

UB Insurance Associates    (deleted vide order dated 09/04/2018)

C/o Apps Daily Sollutions Pvt.Ltd.

6^th floor, C-Wing, Oberoi Garden Estates

Chandivali, Andheri (E)

Mumbai-400072                                                                                           ...Opposite Party-2

                                                                                                                                                           

ORDER

16/08/2024

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

Initially this complaint was filed by Sh. Jitender Rawat, the complainant, against the Department of Post as OP-1 and UB Insurance Associates c/o Apps Daily Solutions Pvt as OP-2. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved an application for deletion of OP-2, which was disposed of as allowed. Vide order dated 09/04/2018, OP-2 was deleted from the array of parties.

1. Facts in brief are that, the complainant had purchased the Xiaomi Redmi 2; IMEI no. 0120150800323021 for Rs. 6,000/- and got it insured. The handset got damaged. On 07/04/2016, the complainant sent the said handset to UB Insurance Associates c/o Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 4^th Floor, Civil Wing, Oberoi Garden, Chandiwali Farm Road, Andheri (East), the insurer (OP-2) along with all the documents through speed post from Tis Hazari Post Office.
2. On 21/04/2016, the complainant’s mother received back an undelivered and torn package containing documents only and the mobile handset was missing. Complainant contacted Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd, customer care, where he was informed that they had not received any handset from speed post.
3. The complainant has alleged that OP has lost the handset during transit. Despite contacting OP-1, the grievance of the complainant was not addressed. Legal notice dated 15/07/2016 (however the said legal notice undated)  was issued to OP demanding OP-1 to find the handset and pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards the speed post receipt No.ED993358217 dated 07/04/2016 same was replied vide reply dated 29/07/2016 where in the said reply it was stated that no insurance policy had been taken and the complainant was advised to file compensation claim with office of Senior Superintendent of Post Office/Delhi North Postal Division or Booking office for loss of contents of article along with copy of receipt.  
4. Alleging unprofessional and unethical conduct of OP-1, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP-1 to pay Rs. 6,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the loss of mobile handset and for causing harassment and          Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses and damages.
5. Complainant has annexed as copy of speed post as Annexure-C1, copy of legal notice and receipt as Annexure-C2 and C3 respectively, complaint to Branch Manager, Post Office, Tis Hazari as Annexure-C4, original bill of mobile as Annexure-C5, claim pre receipt voucher as Annexure-C6, insurance claim form as Annexure-C7, incident report as Annexure-C8, proforma/intimation caution as Annexure-C9, photos of handset as Annexure-C10 & C11, copy of IMEI no. as Annexure-C12, affidavit of the complainant for the name change  of the person as Annexure-C13, copy of aadhar card as Annexure-C14, returned envelope as Annexure-C15 and reply of legal notice as Annexure-C16.
6. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP. Thereafter, Written Statement was filed by OP-1. They have raised several preliminary objections such as: according to the complaint, the complainant had sent the phone through courier, thus no mobile handset was sent through OP-1; the alleged parcel was not insured and OP-1 was not aware of the contents of the said parcel.
7. The mother of the complainant should not have accepted the packet if it was torn.  The weight mentioned on the receipt shows that there was no phone/handset inside the package as the envelope doesn’t show such weight.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied. 
8. Rejoinder to the Written Statement was filed by the complainant. He has relied upon the Office Memorandum No.57-01/2010-BD&MD, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Post which deals with procedure of delivery Speed Post Article and also Chapter VII, Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which deals with undelivered postal articles. 
9. He has annexed the online RTI request form details as Annexure-1 (Colly), Office Memorandum No.57-01/2010-BD&MD and Chapter VII, Indian Post Office Act, 1898with the rejoinder
10. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit repeating the contents of his complaint and rejoinder and has got exhibited copy of Speed post as Ex.CW1/1, copy of legal notice with receipt and reply to the legal notice by OP as Ex.CW1/2 and Ex.CW1/3 respectively and   the complaint as Ex.CW1/4.
11. OP has got examined Sh. Anand Kumar Singh, SSPO, North Division, Delhi.  He has also repeated the contents of the written statement on affidavit.
12. We have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties and have also perused the material placed on record. The complainant has alleged that he had availed services of OP-1 to send the mobile handset to Mumbai. In support, he has placed on record the speed post receipt dated 07/04/2016 for which he has paid postal charges of Rs. 100/- and bears the weight of 376 gms.
13. He has alleged that the parcel was received back as undelivered but the same did not contain the handset. In para 3 of the legal notice and also in para 5 of the complaint, it has been stated by  the complainant which is being  reproduced here under:-

“Para 5” That on 21/04/2016, the complainant’s mother got undelivered and torn, that after seeing this complainant came to know that only documents have been received back without mobile handset (XIOMI REDMI 2, EMI 0120150800323021).  That when complainant contacted the said Mumbai Insurance Company’s customer care regarding his mobile handset he was told that they have not received any parcel for speed post.

14.  As per Office Memorandum dated 01/06/2010 the undeliverable speed post article would be returned either to the sender or to the “Return” address mentioned on the speed post article.  As per Clause 35 of Post Office Guide, part-1 (Rules & Regulations relating to the inland post ) issued by Director-General of Post which deals with definition of Delivery as hereunder :-

35.Definition.- The delivery of a postal article at the house or office of the addressee or to addressee or his servant or agent or other person considered to be authorised to receive the article according to the usual manner of delivering postal article to the addressee is deemed to be delivered to the addressee under the Post Office Act.

15. It is complainant’s own case that the mother of the complainant has accepted the torn returned undelivered packet. Thus, as per abovementioned Clause 35, it was a valid delivery.
16. In this background, applying test of a reasonable man i.e. the decision should not be taken in a manner, as no reasonable man could have ever exercised. In ordinary case no one would have accepted a torn package. Even if assuming that the returned un-delivered packet was torn, once, the said postal article has been accepted without any objection by the mother of the complainant, he cannot allege deficiency in services against OP.
17. The complainant has filed an envelope but has not filed even a single photograph or video when the postal article was delivered. It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to prove his own case, which is not so in the present case.
18. The Complainant has relied on judgement passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in RP No.2208/2017; titled as “Indian Postal Department & Anr. Vs Monu Jhalani” decided on 05/04/2018.  The facts of the present complaint are different from the judgement filed by the complainant; therefore, it is not applicable in the present case.
19.  Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case we do not find any merits in the present complaint and same is dismissed being devoid of merits without orders to cost.
20. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya )         Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta)                Member

                                            (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

                                                                                                      President