Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/753/2014

Mrs. Madhumita Barua - Complainant(s)

Versus

Department of Posts - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/753/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	17/11/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	05/03/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Madhumita Barua w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Barua, R/o H.No.3073, Sector 52, Chandigarh, working as Mathematics Teacher at Govt. High School, Sector 32, Chandigarh.

Complainant

Versus

 

Department of Posts, G.P.O. Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its Senior Postmaster.

 Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:    SH. P.L. AHUJA             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

                    

Present:      Complainant in person.

Sh. Rakesh K. Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Briefly facts of the case are that on 04.08.2014 the Complainant sent a packet, containing ladies suit, through Speed Post from GPO Sector 17, Chandigarh, vide No.EP281099516IN, to be delivered to her sister namely, Malabika Barua, at Sivasagar, Assam, on her birthday falling on 11.08.2014, by paying the requisite charges of Rs.180/-. It has been averred that the aforesaid Suits were purchased by the Complainant for Rs.4017/- from M/s Meena Bazar, Mohali vide Receipt No. T2/003378 dated 26.07.2014. It has been alleged that when the packet did not reach the consignee, the Complainant made online Complaint on 19.8.2014, followed by written representations dated 25.8.2014, 1.9.2014 and 19.9.2014. Ultimately, on declaring the item to be lost, on the instructions of the Opposite Party, the Complainant submitted the application for grant of compensation on 14.10.2014, along with the required documents. However, to the utter surprise of the Complainant, she received a compensation of Rs.360/- only, being double the booking amount for the loss, vide Cheque dated 18.10.2014. In these circumstances, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the Central Govt. or its Postal Officers are exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery of delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. It has been asserted that the Opposite Party has passed the claim as per the provisions of law and the Complainant cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by submitting unreasonable claim. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the Complainant in person and Sh. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party and have also perused the record.  

 

6.      The case of the Complainant is that she sent one parcel containing 4 suits purchased from M/s Meena Bazar, Mohali to her sister at Assam through speed post from GPO, Sector 17, Chandigarh, after paying requisite amount of Rs.180/-. But the aforesaid packet did not reach the consignee. Page 8 of the Complaint makes it evident that the Complainant paid Rs.4017/- to purchase the product on 26.7.2014 through her Debit Card. Further, application for grant of compensation in respect of accountable article is annexed at page no.5 of the Complaint. Two letters are annexed at Page No. 9 and 10 respectively, according to which compensation of an amount of Rs.360/- only was sent to the Complainant as final settlement, vide Cheque which is annexed at page no.11 of the Complaint.

 

7.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that there is no allegation of fraud or willful act of any officer, as such, no liability can be fastened on the postal department or its officers. Further, it is stated by the Opposite Party that the service rendered by the Post Office is merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. It has been further argued that it is very unlikely that a person would gift 04 articles on any occasion. It has been contended that the Central Govt. or its Postal Officers are exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery of delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, reads as under:-

 

“6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage.- The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

 

 

8.      We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments. We feel that in the instant case, the circumstances point out that the parcel containing Suits sent by the Complainant was not delivered to the consignee due to willful act or default of the official/ officials of the Opposite Party. Admittedly, the payment of Rs.180/- towards the speed post charges was paid by the Complainant, but the parcel in question could not reach its destination. It was a fit case for holding a departmental inquiry and to fix the responsibility of the delinquent, but instead of doing so, the Opposite Party is taking shelter of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Opposite Party has not produced any kind of report on record, according to which it enquired about the status of the parcel sent within this period of 02 months, nor it has made any report of holding any kind of departmental inquiry about the lost parcel.

 

9.      Here, we are fortified by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble National Commission in case Postmaster General Kerala & Ors. Vs. Kiron Rasheed, 2011(2) CPC (NC) 328, wherein, it was held that the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 cannot be applied to modernize forms of transaction such as speed post and email etc. and the order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in favour of the Consumer was upheld.   

 

10.      The objection with regard to doubt of sending 04 articles on occasion of birthday of somebody is meaningless, as it is admitted that the Complainant paid the required charges for the purpose of the said speed post transaction, but the parcel in question could not reach to the consignee. The circumstances are a clear pointer towards deficiency in service on the part of officials of Opposite Party.

 

11.      As per page no.11 of the Complaint, an amount of Rs.360/- was sent to the Complainant through Cheque dated 18.10.2014 by the Opposite Party, but during oral arguments the Complainant stated that the same had not been encashed.

 

12.      For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the Complaint and the same is allowed against Opposite Party. Opposite Party is directed:-

 

 [a] To make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony, harassment and financial loss;

 

[b]  To make payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant towards litigation expenses.

 

 

13.      This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Party shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

05^th March,2015                                         

Sd/-

  (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER