cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of January 2013
Filed on : 08/06/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 341/2012
Between
Noushad Thayal, : Complainant
Thayal House, (By Adv. Philip T. Varghese,
Adukkathbail, T.D. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-11)
Behind U.P. School,
Kasargode -671 121.
And
Department of Posts : Opposite party
Rep. by the Post Master, (By Authorized representative)
Angamaly Post Office,
Angamaly,Ernakulam.
Pin-683 572.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 20-06-2010 the complainant consigned two bundles of books by speed post from Angamaly to Dubai through the opposite party. The opposite party collected Rs. 9,850/- towards consignment charges. One of the bundles being serial No. EL 259331296 IN was not delivered to the complainant in Dubai. The educational books worth Rs. 4,879/- which were required urgently in Dubai. After a long lapse of time, the complainant was informed that his goods were not traceable and considered as lost. The inability to obtain the books in time caused great mental agony and distress to the complainant. The complainant ;is entitled to get the price of the books and the consignment charges refunded together with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:
The complainant had booked two articles under speed post on 20-06-2010 under No. EL 259361296 IN and No.259361305 IN destined to Dubai. After a lapse of about 17 months on 15-11-2011 the complainant lodged a complaint regarding non delivery of article bearing No. EL 259361296 IN to the addressee. Though the time limit of 2 months for lodging a complaint was over several correspondences were made by the Department with Mumbai International SPC through web based customer grievance handling system. On 23-12-2011 it was informed that the said article was not traceable at Dubai. The international mail service is operated in accordance with post office Guide Part II Clause 14 and the opposite party has no responsibility for the loss of postal articles if any. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite platy. The complaint deserves dismissed.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A3 and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite party respectively. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the authorized representative of the opposite party.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price
of the article lost in transit together with the consignment
charges ?
ii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay a compensation of
Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant.?
5. Point No. i. Admittedly on 20-06-2010 the complainant had booked two consignments with the opposite party to be delivered in Dubai. One of the consignments was delivered promptly. According to the complainant the opposite party failed to deliver the other consignment and he is entitled to get the value of the consignment together with the consignment charges from the opposite party. The opposite party maintains that there is inordinate delay in making the complaint with the opposite party and according to them the complainant ought to have made the complaint within 2 months from the date of posting as per Ext. B3 General instruction on handing International EMS complaints and refunds. It is stated that as per Ext. B2 clause 14 of the Post Office Guide Part II the responsibility for the non delivery of the article is vested with the country of destination and not with the opposite party.
6. In spite of the time limit as stated in Ext. B3 the opposite party conceded to an enquiry on receipt of Ext. A1 complaint from the complainant. In reply to Ext. A1 the opposite party sent Ext. A3 e-mail communication dated 25-01-2012 which reads as follows:
“Sir, Please read the date as 20-06-2010 instead of 20-06-2011. The Speed post article EI259361296IN dated 20-06-2010 was despatched to Dubai on 23-06-2010 through D.No EDO)184, Bag NO.1, Flight No. EKO501 by Mumbai International SPC. The case was taken up with Dubai Postal Authority and they have replied that “No trace of arrival”. Now the Mumbai International has asked us to settle the case by treating the EMI item lost at Dubai as per the Rules of the department.” Having undertaken the delivery of the articles at the outset and despite admission of their liability in Ext. A3 now the opposite party is hiding under the statutory umbrella to escape from their liability, which is not good at law. It is to be noted that the period of 2 months as stated in Ext. B2 is making complaint is not mandatory and it is only directory in nature since seemingly the opposite party failed to dispatch the articles from Mumbai to Dubai as per the version of the opposite party in spite of their earnest efforts to trace the same and having failed therein for availability, they are justified in their stand.
7. So clause 14 is not applicable in their case in the given set of circumstances. There is sheer deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for the non-delivery of the articles to the addressee. The complainant is entitled to get the coincident charges and the value of the consignment from the opposite party. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove the consignment charges. However the same has not been disputed by the opposite party. So the same holds good. Ext. A2 goes to show the price of the lost articles. Uncontroverted, which amounts to Rs. 4,879/-.
8.Point No. ii. So delayed a complaint fails to be acceptable as bonafide at best it looks only as if a claim though belatedly seemingly at the behest of a third party not conclusively of the complaint. It is pertinent to note that rule of law shall not be dragged into intolerable paths or conclusions not to mention as it is despicable which this Forum finds appreciable and even applaudable. For reasons stated above and costs of the said to be lost articles and consignment charges being awarded, we find no grounds to allow compensation.
9. In the result we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows:
i. The opposite party shall refund the consignment charges of the lost article to the complainant.
ii. The opposite party shall also pay the price of the lost articles as per Ext. A2 to the complainant.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest at the rate 12% p.a till realization .
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of January 2013.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 15-11-2011
A2 : Copy of invoice dt. 11-06-2010
A3 : Copy of letter
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of communication
B2 : Copy of clause 14 of post
office guide part II
B3 : Copy of General instructions
B4 : Copy of order of CDRF, Ekm
dt. 20-09-2005.
