DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 616/2016
Date of Institution : 23.08.2016
Date of Decision : 25.07.2017
Yogesh Kumar son of Sh. Neetu Ram resident of H. No. # 394, Ward No. 8, Street No. 1, Model Town, Tapa Mandi, District Barnala-148108 (Punjab). …Complainant
Versus
1. India Post Office, Meghadoot Bhawan, Link Road, New Delhi, India-110001 through its Post Master/Authorized Signatory.
2. India Post Office, Sandesh Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh India-160017 through its Post Master/Authorized Signatory.
3. India Post Office, Near Railway Station, Sadar Bazaar, Tapa Mandi, India-148108 through its Post Master/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for complainant.
Sh. RK Singla counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Yogesh Kumar has filed the present complaint against India Post Office and others opposite parties under Consumer Protection Act 1986 (In short as Act).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant on 13.4.2016 posted one parcel through Registered Cover having its docket No. CP121401789IN to Bhanguri District Pathankot and paid Rs. 361/- to the opposite party No. 3 as charges for the said post and one receipt regarding this was also issued by the opposite party No. 3. It was assured by the opposite party No. 3 that the said parcel will reach at the given address within 3/4 days.
3. It is alleged that after waiting for reasonable time the complainant did not get any response for the delivery of the parcel by the receiver. Then the complainant checked the status on Shipment Tracking Facility of opposite parties and it came to his knowledge that the said parcel has already been posted to PH Amritsar on 14.4.2016. After that no information was available about that parcel. Therefore, the complainant immediately approached the opposite party No. 3 and inquired about the said parcel and made it clear that the said parcel containing the medicines of Rs. 5,500/- and if it did not deliver to the given address it will cause pecuniary loss of Rs. 5,500/- as well as mental and physical harassment. However, opposite party No. 3 suggested the complainant to wait for some more time. But inspite of waiting for sufficient period the said parcel neither delivered to the given address nor returned to the address of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant submitted one written complaint dated 23.6.2016 which is duly received by opposite party No. 3 but complainant could not get any information. Thereafter, the complainant approached all the opposite parties many times but invain. Then, the complainant through his counsel sent one legal notice dated 18.7.2016 to all the opposite parties. However, opposite party No. 1 replied the legal notice but till today nothing is done by the opposite parties. So, it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) For directing the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 5,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13.4.2016 till realization.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties filed a joint written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had got booked registered parcel No. CP121401789IN at Dr. Pankaj Thakur, I/C Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Bhanguri District Gurdaspur from Tapa Post Office on 13.4.2016 and the receipt of Rs. 361/- dated 13.4.2016 was issued to the complainant by SPM Tapa SO. The said article was dispatched to Ludhiana RMS (CRC) on 13.4.2016 duly entered at Sr. No. 2/4 vide bag No. CBP0001470014. As per Web Tracking Report the said article was received at PH Ludhiana on 14.4.2016 for further dispatch to PH Amritsar. However, the contents of the parcel and cost thereof was never disclosed by the complainant at the time of booking the parcel. It was also not get insured. They have also admitted the complaint to the extent that the complainant lodged the complaint with them and as per report received from CCC I Division Jalandhar the parcel bag No. CBP0001473014 containing the parcel under reference was not physically reached at PH Amritsar and I/C CCC I Division asked this office to sanction the claim as per department rules and accordingly compensation of Rs. 100/- was sanctioned and paid to the complainant vide cheque No. 031462 dated 22.9.2016. It is also submitted that every effort was made to trace out the parcel and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C-2, copy of application dated 23.6.2016 Ex.C-3, legal notice dated 18.7.2016 Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7, copy of postal receipt dated 13.4.2016 Ex.C-8, copy of letter paid dated 2.6.2014 Ex.C-9, copy of receipt No. 908 Ex.C-10, copy of bill No. 829 Ex.C-11, copy of receipt No. 5354 Ex.C-12, copy of bill No. 16956 Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant opposite parties have tendered in evidence affidavit of Krishan Sharma Superintendent Post office Ex.OP-1 to 3/1, cheque bearing No. 031462 dated 9.1.2017 Ex.OP-1to3/2 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
9. There is no dispute that the complainant booked the registered parcel with the opposite party for delivering the same at Bhanguri District Gurdaspur from Tapa Post Office and charged Rs. 361/-. There is also no denial by the opposite parties that the said parcel has not reached at the destination.
10. However, the opposite parties have submitted that the complaint is not maintainable under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.
11. Firstly, it is relevant to refer Section 6 of the ibid Act which reads as.-
“The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss/mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Govt. of India as hereinafter provided and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by such reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”
12. Similar question has arisen in the case in the Revision Petition titled as Chief Post Master General and others Versus Garima Gupta reported in 2017 (2) CLT-591 wherein the Revision Petitioner had taken the shelter under Section 6 of the Act referred to above as there was a delay in delivery of 7 days. In the said case the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Revision Petitioner to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. The Hon'ble State Commission affirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.
13. In the case cited above the Hon'ble National Commission in Para Nos. 5 and 6 was observed as.-
“5. On a pointed query by us, as to whether or not any enquiry was conducted by the Petitioner on receipt of the complaint about an inordinate delay of 7 days in delivery of the postal article, within the city itself, learned Counsel has candidly admitted that no such enquiry was made but on receipt of the complaint, while informing her that the delay had taken place due to “mis-sending” of the article, a compensation of Rs. 25/- was offered to her.
6. In light of the said admission, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Fora below to the effect that the Petitioners had failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the said “mis-sending” was not on account of willful act or default on the part of its employee, as stipulated in the later part of Section 6 of the said Act.”
The Revision Petition was dismissed accordingly.
14. Now coming to the present case, the opposite party have placed on record the affidavit of Krishan Sharma Superintendent as Ex.OP-1to3/1. However, no report or document has been placed on record to show that there was no default on the part of their employees. Even, no exact reason for non delivery has been mentioned in the written statement or has placed any document to that effect. No relevant document in this regard has been placed to get the benefit under Section 6 of the ibid Act. The onus to prove that the opposite party is not liable under Section 6 of the Act is upon the opposite party. As the opposite party miserably failed to prove the same by producing any evidence, therefore the Section 6 of the Act shall not lend any help to the opposite parties.
15. Now the next question arises as to the quantum of liability of the opposite parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant sent the parcel containing the medicines of Rs. 5,500/- through the opposite party and paid Rs. 361/- as charges for the said delivery. The complainant has also placed on record the receipt Ex.C-8 showing the payment of Rs. 361/- to the opposite party No. 3. However, perusal of the said receipt does not show any contents of the parcel. There is also no terms and conditions provided on the receipt which may show that the parties are bound by the Contract between the parties. There is also no plea of the complainant that alongwith the medicines he had also enclosed the bill/invoice of the medicines. Moreover, no such invoice showing the value of the medicines as Rs. 5,500/- has been placed on record. Even, no affidavit of any seller/chemist has been placed on record to prove the purchase of said medicines of Rs. 5,500/-. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, the plea of the complainant that he sent the medicines of Rs. 5,500/- in the parcel through opposite party cannot be accepted absolutely. However, it is proved on the record that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
16. As a result of the above discussion, this Forum is of the view that Rs. 2,000/- is a reasonable assessment of the compensation to be provided by the opposite parties to the complainant for the loss of the parcel. Therefore, the complaint is partly accepted to the extent that the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as composite charges which also includes compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
25th Day of July 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
