Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/287/2017

Rupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Sep 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	287 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	23.03.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	01.09.2017

 

 

 

 

Rupinder Singh son of S.Amarjit Singh, R/o H.No.1224, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.   

                               …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Manager, Post Office, Sector 22, Chandigarh

2]  Manager, Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER 

 

 

Argued by :     Complainant in person.

                Sh.G.C.Babbar, Advocate for OPs.

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant booked one parcel from Sector 22 Post Office, Chandigarh to Imphal in the name of Amar School Uniform, Thangal Bazar, Imphal vide Receipt No.EP349343070IN on 17.10.2016 from Counter No.1.  It is averred that in the said parcel, there were uniforms/garments packed amounting to Rs.16,433/- vide Bill NO.422, dated 15.10.2016 issued by Vikas Traders, Sector 45, Chandigarh. It is also averred that the said parcel was not delivered at the designated place and when the matter was taken with the Opposite Parties and in process, they issued letter dated 23.11.2016 mentioning that the booked article be treated as lost. It is pleaded that due to non-delivery/loss of articles, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.16,433/- as amount of articles packed in the parcel and also suffered harassment and metal tension due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the booked parcel/article was sent to the place of destination in time, but the same could not reach to Imphal and appeared to have been lost in the transit. It is stated that all efforts and inquiries were made to trace out the article from various intermediary offices, but the same could not be traced out and accordingly, the article was treated to be lost.  It is submitted that the Postal Department is completely exempted from any liability for the loss, delay and damage to any article during the course of transmission by Post and the only liability, prescribed under the Rule for the loss of postal article is double of the postal charges paid by the sender or Rs.1000/- whichever is less. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The case in hand is admitted to the extent that the parcel booked by the complainant with Opposite Party NO.1/Sector 22 Post Office, Chandigarh to Imphal in the name of Amar School Uniform, Thangal Bazar, Imphal vide Receipt No.EP349343070IN on 17.10.2016 from Counter No.1, got lost somewhere during the transit and thus was remained undelivered to the addressee.  It is a matter of record that the constant efforts of the complainant to recover the loss occasioned due to the loss of booked parcel, failed to move the Opposite Parties an inch and thus was forced to file the present complaint.

 

7]       In response to the complaint filed before the Forum, the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case submitted that the Postal Department is completely exempted from any liability for the loss, delay and damage to any article during the course of transmission by Post under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Claimed further that in case any responsibility is fixed, then the OPs are under obligation to pay under the prescribed rule double of the postal charges paid by sender or Rs.1000/- whichever is less.

 

8]       The Provision No.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, referred by the OPs, is 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 articles 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.”

 

9]        In respect of the norms determined by the Department of Posts our attention has been drawn to circular No.43-4/87-BDD dated 22.1.1999 issued by General Manager (BD) and addressed to all Chief Post Masters General, relevant portion of which we quote:

 

1. In the event of loss of Speed Post article, loss of contents or damage to the contents, the compensation payable to the customer will be - double the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- whichever is less.”

 

10]      It is right to mention that the applicability of the referred Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 has thoroughly been discussed by our Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No.541 of 2016 - Department of Posts & Ors Vs. Gajanand Sharma, decided on 08.12.2016, wherein similar and identical issue has been dealt with and the impugned order of Hon’ble State Commission awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- has been upheld. 

 

11]      The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in an earlier judgment in Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, General Post Office (GPO) Vs. Dipak Banerjee & Anr. IV (2015) CPJ 329 (NC) has observed in detail that the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is divided into two parts i.e. first part provides for a complete immunity to the government and second part carves out an exception to the blanket immunity to its officers.  In the cited judgment Department of Posts & Ors Vs. Gajanand Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission has observed as under:-

18.    To reiterate, Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners took shelter under Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act and despite two opportunities given by this Commission, on 11.03.2016 and on 27.04.2016, to file Affidavit and a Better Affidavit, respectively, stipulating the reasons for the delay in the delivery of the article, the Department had stated in the Affidavits, that the relevant record was not available and, therefore, the exact reason could not be ascertained.

19.    The only stand of the Postal Department in this case is that the relevant records are not available and therefore the reasons cannot be ascertained. The attitude of the Postal Department is a deliberate attempt  to hide the  real  reason for the wrong doing of its employee(s) in not delivering the letter within the norms prescribed by  the Postal Department itself. Such conduct of the Postal Department, leads to irresistible  conclusion that there was a willful  default on the part of its official(s) concerned, which is not being disclosed and, therefore, the case of the Complainant  falls within the ambit of the exception carved out under Section 6 of the said Act.  Having held so, and there being a clear deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(g) of the CPA, 1986, I am of the opinion that  a reasonable  compensation of ₹ 25,000/- awarded by the State Commission  is  completely  justified. 

 

12]      Applying the ration of the judgment referred above, it is observed that in the case in hand also no cogent reason has been brought on record by the Opposite Parties for the loss of the booked parcel in question, so we can safely conclude that there was a willful default on the part of the officials of the OPs who failed to deliver the parcel in question to the consignee. 

 

13]      Further, it is added that the perusal of the document dated 23.11.2016 reveals that the OP department was duly informed regarding the status of the parcel ‘being lost’, but despite of the said information, the OPs failed to pay the due amount, which they claimed themselves to be liable to pay under the prescribed rule, as mentioned above.  It is apparent on record that not even a single penny was paid to the complainant in the form of compensation on account of loss of parcel; which is a clear cut case of defiance of the prescribed rule and referred provision under which the immunity is sought by the officials of the Opposite Party Department.  Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party is writ large.

 

14]      In the present circumstances, we feel that the complainant is fully entitled for the postal charges, value of the parcel along with compensation and litigation expenses. 

 

15]      In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties with following directions:-

1. To refund the postage charges of Rs.1472/- to the complainant;

 

2. To pay Rs.16,433/- being the value of the goods of the lost parcel;

 

3. To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the parts of Opposite Parties.
4. To pay litigation cost of Rs.7000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount mentioned in sub-para (a) to (c) above from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from paying litigation cost. 

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

Announced

1^st September, 2017               

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER