SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

      Complainant filed this complaint  under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986   seeking an order to get Rs.45000/- being compensation from Ops 1 to 3 for the deficiency in service on their part.

    Brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant had booked a Kelvinator Cooler Naptol worth Rs.3600/- to  Ops 2&3 through online .  On delivery, article delivered to complainant from Temple Gate Post office  in a damaged condition on 20/4/2019 forenoon.  Complainant alleged that there is failure in safe handling of parcel from  Temple gate post office.  Hence the  parcel became damaged.  On informing this grievance to 1^st OP post  master, Temple gate po, no necessary action was taken by him.  Ops 2&3 are also not redressed his grievance.  Hence filed this complaint for getting relief as prayed for , for the  deficiency in service on the part of Ops 1 to 3.

    After  receiving notice 1^st OP filed version, Ops 2&3 not turned up for  contesting the case. 1^st OP admitted the article  BPCOD parcel receives  and  its delivery to the complainant.   1^st OP also submitted that  the parcel was delivered to the complainant  is  in good condition and regarding the  content of the article, department of posts is not aware of the  contents of the  said  article and not liable  for its maintenance . 1^st OP submitted that as per as per  Sec.6 of the  Indian Post Office Act 1898 clearly lays the government shall not incur any liability by  reason of loss, mis delivery or delay etc  to   postal  article in  course of transmission by post.  The extract of Sec.6 of Post Office Act 1898, which may be  reproduced that” , exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage -The government shall not incur any liability by  reason of the  loss, mis delivery or delay or damage  to any  postal article in  course of transmission by posts, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the central government  as  here in  after provided , and no officer of the post office  shall incur any liability by reason of any such  loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the  same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.” An officer of the post office may be  held  liable for any loss , mis delivery delay or damage if it can be  proved that he has caused such loss, mis delivery, delay  or damage  by some fraudulent act or willful act or default. That the complainant is only an addressee who received the parcel sent in his name and the addressee does not enter into any contract with the government. The addressee really avails of the service statutorily provided by the government.  The Ist OP has delivered the BPCOD parcel with utmost care and promptly to the complainant and  there is no negligence on his part in dealing  with the article.  The allegation of the complainant that there is failure in safe handling of  parcel from Temple Gate post office is baseless and  devoid of any merits it can be taken as an afterthought and hence prays  dismissal of the complaint  against  1^st OP.

  During the evidence time, complainant filed his chief affidavit with documents.  He was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 original  parcel bill and Ext.A2 acknowledgment of  post master(OP1).  He was made cross examined for 1^st OP.  For 1^st OP, Superintendent of

Post master, Thalassery  Division , Mr.C.M.Bharathan filed  his chief affidavit with two documents.  He was examined as DW1 and marked Exts.B1 delivery slip and Ext.b2 copy of  letter on their side.  He was made cross examined by the complainant.  1^st OP filed argument note.  Complainant made oral argument before us. 

    Here the allegation of the complainant is that there is failure on the part of 1^st OP in handling of  parcel at Temple gate Post office and  that is  why the  article became damaged.  So the  main grievance is against 1^st  OP.  1^st OP admitted the receival of parcel and also its delivery to the complainant.  According to  1^st OP the parcel was delivered in good condition.

    Here the question to be decided is whether the parcel delivered to complainant was a damaged one and if so whether OP1 is liable to pay the compensation  to the complainant?

    On going through the  whole evidence it is evidenced that the article  delivered  by 1^st OP to the complainant was a damaged one.   Ext.A2 is the letter given by the complainant to 1^st OP on the same day afternoon., which was acknowledged by 1^st OP specifically stated that the  article became damaged.

   The testimony of PW1 reveals that in page 1 last and page 2  ho«n sN¶v Cd§nbXn\v tijamtWm s]m«nbXv a\ÊnembXv  ?  (D) t]mÌv Hm^oknÂsh¨v A\¡w D­mbncp¶p . Fsâ ap¶n t]mÌv Hm^oknse Poh\¡mc³  ]mÀk hens¨dnbp¶Xv Rm³  I­p.   Further deposed   Ae£yambn  ssIImcyw sN¿p¶Xmbn I­p..  Further  ]mÀk  h¶ Øe¯v \n¶pXs¶ s]m«nbn«mWv h¶Xv F¶p ]dªm (D) icnbÃ.  t]mÌ Un¸mÀ«vsaânsâ `mK¯p\n¶pÅ hogvN sIm­mWv.   Further in page (3)  sNss¶bn \n¶pw  Temple Gate  t]mkväv Hm^okn  despatch sNbvX tamiw ]m¡nwKv ImcWamWv CXv  kw`hn¨Xv F¶p ]dªmÂ(D) ssIImcyw sNbvXXnepw  A]mIXbp­v.

   1^st OP  took a defence that as per Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 that  the  Govt. shall not incur any liability by  reason of loss, mis delivery or delay etc to postal article in the course of transmission by post.

   1^st OP submitted that even though  1^st OP delivered  a damaged article, as per Sec.6 they  are exempted from the liability.   In this contest on going through the submission, it may be noted that the provisions of Sec.6 of Post Office Act 1898, which may be  reproduced thus” The government shall not incur any liability by  reason of the  loss, mis delivery or delay or damage  to any  post article in  course of transmission by pos, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the central government  as  here in  after provided , and no officer of the post office  shall incur any liability by reason of any such  loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the  same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

    In view of the above provision, in the present case, OP contended that department of post is not aware of the contents of the  delivered article and not liable for its  maintenance.  This contention of 1^st OP is corroborated with the  above said deposition of PW1, we can come to a conclusion that 1^st OP  handled the article in a default manner.  It is an admitted fact that (Ext.A2) the article was damaged at the time of delivery.

    This being the position, Sec.6 of the  Indian Post Office Act 1898 which provides for exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of a postal article will not be applicable to the present case.

   We accordingly of the view that 1^st OP is liable  for grievance happened to the complainant.

          The next point to be decided is whether that the whole responsibility goes to 1^st OP alone? The complainant submitted that Ops 2&3 are also responsible for his grievance.  The testimony of PW1 reveals that the packing of the article was not proper. Ops 2&3 should have packed the article in a proper way.  From the whole evidence we can reveal that, without proper packing of Ops2&3 and mishandling of 1^st OP at the post office, the complainant could not use the Kelvinator cooler purchased from Ops 2&3 after paying Rs.3600/-.  There is deficiency in service on the part of all opposite parties.  Hence complainant is entitled to get relief.

      In the result, complaint is allowed in part.  Ops 2&3 are directed to pay Rs.3600/- to the complainant(value of Kelvinator cooler).  1^st Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  The order is to be complied by the opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of  order.  Failing which, the amounts will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.  The complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions in the consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Parcel bill dtd.11/4/19

A2-Affidavit of post master dtd.20/4/19.

B1- delivery slip

B2- copy of letter

PW1-Sreejith.V.K-complainant

DW1-C.M.Bharathan- 1^st OP

Sd/                                                                 Sd/                                                                   Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                                             MEMBER

Ravi Susha                      Molykutty Mathew.                               Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                            /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT