Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/1133

POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

KASHMIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SH. RAJEEV JAIN

10 Jun 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

                   PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL                             

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 984 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 29.05.2013 passed in C.C.No.271/2012 by the District Commission, Bhind)

 

KASHMIR SINGH GIL,

S/O SHRI VACHAN SINGH GIL,

VILLAGE-CHAK TATON, POST-BARAHEAD,

TEHSIL-GOHAD, DISTRICT-BHIND (M.P.)                                                         …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

1. SUB POST MASTER, GOHAD DISTRICT-BHIND

 

2. SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICE,

    GWALIOR REGION, MURAR, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                            …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1133 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 29.05.2013 passed in C.C.No.271/2012 by the District Commission, Bhind)

 

1. SUB POST MASTER, GOHAD DISTRICT-BHIND

 

2. SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICE,

    GWALIOR REGION, MURAR, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                             …          APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

                 

KASHMIR SINGH GIL,

S/O SHRI VACHAN SINGH GIL,

VILLAGE-CHAK TATON, POST-BARAHEAD,

TEHSIL-GOHAD, DISTRICT-BHIND (M.P.)                                                          …         RESPONDENT.

            

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK    :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA     :      MEMBER   

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

      Shri M. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant.

     Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for the opposite parties-post office.                  

                                                            O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 10.06.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Presiding Member:

 

                        Aforesaid two appeals which arise out of a common order, are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.  This order shall govern disposal of the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts

-2-

of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.984/2013 unless otherwise stated.  

2.                Both the appeals arise out of order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhind (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.271/2012 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant. The complainant has filed First Appeal No. 984/2013 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Commission whereas the opposite parties-post office has filed First Appeal No.1133/2013 for setting aside the impugned order.

3.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant had booked the articles through speed post from Gohad to Bhind & Gwalior on different dates, but the opposite party-post office charged in excess to the charges fixed as per weight and distance. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking refund of Rs.35/- charged in excess on different dates along with compensation and costs.

4.                The opposite parties-post office resisted the complaint stating that the post office did not charge intentionally in excess as fixed for speed post and that was due to wrong feeding of speed post tariff in the computer. On mistake being realized, the complainant was returned a sum of Rs.18/-

-3-

vide cheque no. 396526 dated 31.01.2013.  An enquiry was conducted regarding variation in speed post tariff fed in the computer. It is submitted that the complainant did not suffer any mental or physical agony and therefore he is not entitled for any compensation. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.  

5.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant holding the opposite parties deficient in service in charging excess of the speed post charges from the complainant and other consumers, and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, jointly or severally.  

6.                Heard. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that despite written complaint, the opposite party-post office did not refund the amount.  He argued that the opposite parties have committed gross deficiency in service intentionally and are therefore liable to pay heavy penalty. Compensation of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the District Commission is inadequate.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties-post office argued that the impugned order is against the law and is liable to be set-aside. The District Commission failed to consider this aspect that the post office had not charged the amount intentionally, and it was charged on the basis of speed post tariff fed in the computer, which was merely due to technical

-4-

error. Excess amount charged from the complainant had already been refunded to him and therefore no dispute remains in the matter. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set-aside. In support of his arguments he relied on the judgment of the National Commission in Post Master, Imphal Vs Jamini Devi Sagolband (2000) NCJ 142 stating that unless the postmaster or any employee is shown to be guilty of fraud or willful act, claim of compensation is not maintainable.

9.                We however find that the judgment referred is specifically regarding the liability of Post Office when registered letter is lost in transit. Plainly, the case in hand pertains to allegations of the complainant regarding overcharging for booking articles through speed post, which the opposite parties have admitted of doing, though citing wrongly fed speed post tariff in the computer as reason for the same.  It is submitted by the opposite parties that an investigation was initiated in order to find out reason for the said discrepancy.  Admittedly, the opposite parties offered refund of the amount charged extra, during the pendency of the complaint before the District Commission.

10.              To conclude the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint but at the same time, we find that the District Commission has gone overboard in awarding the compensation, which is unwarranted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, the impugned order

-5-

is modified and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant in place of Rs.20,000/-.

11.              The appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement is dismissed and the one filed by the opposite parties is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

12.              No order as to costs.

13.              This order be placed in First Appeal No.984/2013 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No.1133/2013.

 

           (Dr. Monika Malik)                   (D. K. Shrivastava)         

            Presiding Member                           Member