Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/889/2019

Shubhara - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Post - Opp.Party(s)

Preeti Kalia & Anirudh Gupta

19 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/889/2019
Date of Institution	:	29/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	19/02/2021

 

Shubhara D/o Sh. Rajan Mittal, R/o H.No. 1020, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

India Post, Postal Department, Govt. of India, through Sub-Post Master, Sector 15 Post Office, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

PRESENT

:

Sh.Anirudh Gupta, Counsel for Complainant. Sh.Vikas Kashyap, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

Per Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan which was on 15.08.2019, the Complainant sent Rakhi to her brothers at Kota (Rajasthan), through Speed Post on 09.08.2019 by paying the requisite charges. According to the Complainant, although as per track record the envelope reached the destination city i.e. Kota on 13.08.2019, yet the same was delivered to her Brothers on 16.08.2019 i.e. a day after the festival got over.   Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the Complaint and filed reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the article was delivered to the receiver on 14.08.2019 by the Postman (Delivery Slip Annexure R-1). Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a replication, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Parties and have also gone through the entire record with utmost care and circumspection.
7.         We have gone through Annexure R-3, which is Office Memorandum of Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts, containing revised delivery norms for speed post. The Kota city where the article was required to be delivered by speed post is not covered in the Metro Cities (as mentioned in the above Memorandum) where the speed post/article is to be delivered within two days. The Kota city is covered in rest of the country where the speed post/article is to reach within 4 to 6 days. Further, it has been mentioned that these days shall exclude day of posting, Sundays and Holidays.
8.         In the present case, the speed post in question was booked by the Complainant on 09.08.2019. The first day happens to be Saturday i.e. 10.08.2019. 11.08.2019 and 12.08.2019 are not included being Sunday and a holiday on account Eid. The next working days i.e. 13.08.2019 and 14.08.2019 are the second and third day to be accounted as per the norms, referred to above. 15.08.2019 is always a National Holiday. As per the Complainant, the speed post/article was received on 16.08.2019 being the fourth day as per the aforesaid norms. We reiterate here that as per the norms specified in the Memorandum, the speed post letter can be delivered between 4 to 6 days in the cities (rest of India) not specifically mentioned in the delivery norms. In these set of circumstances, it can safely be concluded that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Party. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party or that the Opposite Party adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
19/02/2021	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”