Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/200

Nivesh Pandey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder S. adv

26 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 200 of 22.03.2018

Date of Decision            :   26.02.2021

Nivesh Pandey s/o Sh.Narinder Pandey through his representative Sh.Narendra Kumar Pandey r/o Street No.2, Ambedkar Nagar, 33-feet Road, Giaspura, Ludhiana-141016.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Post Master, Post and Telegraph Department, Near Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana.

2.Post and Telegraph Department, Railway Mail & Parcel Services, Ludhiana.

3.Post Master/Sub Post Master of NIT Agartala Sub Post Office under Agartala Do.

Opposite parties

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Jaswinder Singh Sehgal, Advocate 

For OPs                         :         Sh.R.K.Gupta, Advocate

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in referred to as ‘Act’) has been filed by the above named complainant through his father and representative Sh.Narendra Kumar Pandey on the allegations that his son namely Nivesh Pandey purchased a Lenovo Dual sim mobile bearing IMEI No.861808039627603, 861808039627595 online from Flipkart. The son of the complainant is studying at NIT Agartala. As the mobile developed some snag, Nivesh Pandey approached the service centre at Agartala but he was told that the mobile could be repaired at the place from where it was purchased. The son of the complainant sent the mobile through speed post vide article no.EE458325032IN dated 12.09.2017 with net weight of the article 530 GM to his father at Ludhiana. The mobile was not received at Ludhiana even after lapse of 10 days and an online complaint bearing No.100078863611 was filed by the complainant on 22.09.2017. The online status of the said complaint displayed the remarks ‘By Auto status update process:- Bag opened at NSH Ludhiana on 18.09.2017’. However the said mobile was not traced by the Postal Authorities and it was presumed by them that the articles have been lost during the transit. On 20.09.2017, the complainant visited the post offices at Lohara as well as Railway Station at Post & Parcel Wing, Ludhiana. The complainant even contacted the OP3 at Agartala but he was informed that the article had been sent to the destination address and the complainant should contact the concerned post office at Ludhiana. Despite several visits to the above said post offices, no satisfactory answer was given to the complainant. Ultimately the complaint was filed with Postmaster SPC, Ludhiana as well as Postmaster SPC, Agartala but the article was not traced. The complainant has been put through a lot of harassment, mental agony and stress due to the conduct of the Postal Authorities. It appears that the Postal Authorities have dishonestly misappropriated the parcel containing the mobile. It also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation which includes the costs of mobile of Rs.13,499/-.

2.               The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as it cannot be decided by following the summary procedure. According to the OPs, no compensation is permissible in view of the Post Office Guide and the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act 1898. Moreover at the time of booking of the article, the complainant did not disclose the contents and the value of the articles. It is further pleaded that valuable article cannot be sent through the Post Office without disclosing the contents and value at the time of the booking. The complainant could have sent the alleged valued article under the insured cover by paying the requisite fee and only then the complainant could have claimed the insured sum of the article lost. Even otherwise as per Rule 184(2) of the Post Office Guide Part-I, the insurance is mandatory for at least the amount specified for recovery from the addressee in case of all valuable articles on which the amounts specified for recovery exceeds Rs.100/-. It has further been pleaded that liability of the Postal Department is limited in case of damage/mis-delivery/non-delivery of the article as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and Rule 66(B) of the Indian Post Office Rules 1933 which provides that 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 insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government 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. The OPs have further pleaded that as per Rule 66(B) of the Indian Post Office Rules 1933, amended w.e.f.1.8.1986, in case of any delay in delivery of domestic speed post parcels, the compensation equal to the composite cost of speed post charges shall be paid and in case of loss of domestic speed post articles, the compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/-, whichever is less. In view of the statutory provisions of law, no liability can be fastened upon the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the article was booked on 12.9.2017 at Agartala but the contents of the article and the value of the same was not disclosed by the person who booked the same. Had the contents and value of the article been disclosed, the same would not have been accepted for booking. The OPs were not aware that the parcel contained a mobile phone. It has further been pleaded that the NSH(National Sorting Hub) Ludhiana has reported that the article under reference was received short in Bag No.EBE7501638143 on 18.9.2017 and error No.2614 was noted in the record and was sent to Manager Speed Post Centre Agartala vide registered letter No.RP627704659IN dated 18.9.2017. Eventually on 13.11.2017 CCC Agartala Division closed the complaint with the remarks that article appears to have been lost in transit. It has been denied if the complainant has suffered lot of harassment, mental agony and stress. The complainant was required to lodge a claim as he was entitled to a compensation to the extent of double of the booking charges or Rs.1000/- whichever is less but no such claim was lodged by the complainant. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In order to prove the allegations made in the complaint, counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CA of father of the complainant and also proved on record documents Ex.CA1 to Ex.C6.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Amanpreet Singh, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, City Division, Ludhiana along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7.

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record on file very carefully.

6.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainants has argued that admittedly the parcel containing mobile phone worth of Rs.13,499/- was booked at Agartala for delivery at Ludhiana but it was never delivered and was lost in postal transit. This clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and they must be held liable to pay the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant along with compensation, as prayed for in the complaint. Counsel for the complainant has further contended that no legitimate explanation has been given by the OPs as to how and where the parcel was lost and under these circumstances, the OPs cannot be eschew from their liability by hiding themselves behind certain rules and regulations since it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for which they are liable to be held responsible. In support of his arguments, counsel for the complainant has relied upon Chief Post Master vs. Shri Ankur Chauhan-2018(3)CPJ-16(Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai) whereby it has been held that in case of non-delivery of registered parcel to the addressee, the Postal Authorities can be directed to give amount of the article present in the registered parcel to the complainant along with costs and compensation. Counsel for the complainant has further relied upon Senior Superintendent, Post Office, Gurgaon and others vs. Raja Ram-2018(3)CLT-161(Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) whereby it has been held that if out of 51 letters sent by the complainant through post, 10 letters remained untraceable, a compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded along with interest @9% per annum from the date of order passed by the District Forum along with litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.

7.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs has argued that as per Rule 66(B) of the Indian Post Office Rules 1933, liability of the OPs is limited to the extent of double of the value of the booking amount of the parcel or Rs.1000/- whichever is less. Counsel for the OPs has further contended that the complainant, while booking the article did not disclose that it contains a valuable article such as mobile phone which cannot be ordinarily sent through speed post. Had the complainant disclosed about the contents of the parcel, it would not have been booked. Counsel for the OPs has further contended that the complainant was required to disclose the contents of parcel and in that event, he would have been advised to send the parcel under the insured cover and only in that event, the complainant would be held entitled for any compensation. In the instant case, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.284/- only which is double the amount of speed post charges paid by him and in respect of the parcel which has been lost during transit. In support of his arguments, counsel for the OPs has relied upon case titled as Head Post Master vs. Vijay Rattan Aggarwal decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 18.09.2002 whereby it has been held that as per the Rules amended by Notification No.GSR 40(E) dated 21.1.1999 whereby condition No.(5) of Rule 66B was introduced which provides that in the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/- whichever is less. In this case, there is reference to certain restrictions/prohibitions provided in Rules 184 of Post Office Rules 1933 as amended which says that electronic items Television, VCRs, Radios, Transformers, Alarm, Clocks etc., cannot be sent through speed post. It has further been held in this very case that rules are statutory and in the event of loss of an article sent through speed post compensation shall be double the amount of composite fee speed charges paid or Rs.1000/- whichever is less. Counsel for the OPs has further relied upon Union of India and others vs. R.C.Puri-2007(2)CPJ-49(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) whereby it has been held that in case of delay in the delivery of postal articles, Fora cannot grant compensation more than what is statutorily fixed and under Rule 66 (B) and Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 for delay in delivery, compensation payable is equal to the composite speed post charges paid. Counsel for the OPs has further relied upon Director Postal Services, A and N Islands vs. Shyamali Ganguli-2004(3)CPJ-60(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) whereby it has been held that Section 6 of the Post Office Act clearly exempts any liability of the OPs in case of delay etc, unless the loss or delay is caused fraudulently or willful act or default. If the Forum has not returned any finding on any willful default, they have compensated for the delay in delivery and the maximum that can be done in case of delay in delivery of speed post articles is to reimburse speed post charges paid. Counsel for the Ops has further relied upon Speed Post Customer Care Centre and others vs. Niranjan Sahoo Xaviere Institute of Social Service-2015(2)CPR-617(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) whereby it has been held that in case of non-delivery of speed post article carrying interview letter for him, the complainant was entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.20/- which is stated to be amount paid to post office for delivery of article by speed post. It was further held that liability of post office cannot exceed said amount in case of delay in delivery of an article sent by speed post. Counsel for the Ops has further relied upon Union of India and others vs. Achintam Kilikdar-2009(4)CPJ-97(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) whereby it has been held that if the parcel contained valuable material, it should have been sent under insured post. It was further held that no allegation of fraud, willful act and default alleged against the postal officials, liability of postal department is limited to Rs.1000/- in view of Section 6 of Post Office Act. Counsel for the OPs has further relied upon Speed Post through Manager Speed Post Office, GPO Building, Jaipur vs. Laxman Singh-2010(1)CPJ-29(National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, New Delhi) whereby it has been held that in case of delayed delivery of an article, a compensation equal to double of the speed post charges and Consumer Fora cannot grant compensation more than what is statutory fixed.

8.                We have weighed the rival contentions raised by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case law cited by counsel for the both the parties.

9.                So far as the facts of the case are concerned, there is not much dispute about the same. It is admitted case of the parties that the parcel was dispatched from Agartala on 12.09.2017 having net weight of 530 gm. It was supposed to be delivered at Ludhiana to the father of the complainant. It is also not disputed that the parcel was never delivered at the address mentioned on the same. The parcel could not be traced by the Postal Authorities and it was presumed to have been lost in transit. Though it has been alleged in the complaint that the Postal Authorities have dishonestly misappropriated the parcel in question and no inquiry was got conducted to fix the responsibility of any person responsible for the loss of the parcel but apart from that, there are no allegations of any fraud having been committed by some officials of the Post Offices of Agartala or Ludhiana. It has been unequivocally held in the cited cases by the counsel for the OPs that as per Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1896 and Rule 66(B), the Consumer Forum cannot grant compensation more than what is statutorily fixed. In this regard, a reference can be made to the law laid down in Union of India and others vs. R.C.Puri(Supra) whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that under Rule 66(B) and Section 6 of Post Office Act, 1898, compensation payable is equal to composite speed post charges paid. Similarly in Speed Post Customer Care Centre and others vs. Niranjan Sahoo Xaviere Institute of Social Service(Supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that in case of non-delivery of speed post articles carrying interview letter, the complainant was entitled to compensation equivalent to the amount paid to the Post Office for delivery of article by speed post. It was further held in this cited case that liability of post office cannot exceed the amount in case of delay in delivery of an article sent by speed post. Similarly in case Speed Post through Manager Speed Post Office, GPO Building, Jaipur vs. Laxman Singh(Supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that in case of delayed delivery of speed post, compensation equal to composite speed post charges is payable and Consumer Fora cannot grant compensation more than what is statutorily fixed. Therefore, the essence of the aforesaid rulings, The District Commission has no power to go beyond the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 and Rule 66(B) to award higher compensation than what is provided for in the rules.

10.              In this context, it is further worthwhile to refer to the law laid down in Union of India and others vs. Achintam Kilikdar(Supra) whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that if the parcel contained valuable material, it should have been sent under insured post and if no allegations of fraud, willful act, default is alleged against the Postal Authorities, liability of the Postal Department is limited to Rs.1000/- in view of Section 6 of the Post Office Act. In the instant case also, it was not disclosed to the Postal Authorities that the mobile was being sent through Speed Post nor any allegations of fraud etc against any particular officials of the Postal Department have been levelled. Therefore, the instant case is securely covered by law laid down in the cited cases.

11.              So far as the cases cited by counsel for the complainant is concerned, the same have been rendered by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai and Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula which cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in cases Union of India and others vs. R.C.Puri(Supra), Speed Post Customer Care Centre and others vs. Niranjan Sahoo Xaviere Institute of Social Service(Supra) and Union of India and others vs. Achintam Kilikdar(Supra).

12.           Resultantly in view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs. However, this order shall not preclude the complainant from claiming the compensation payable under Section 6 read with Section 66(B) of the Indian Post Office Act, 1933. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

13.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                     (Jyotsna Thatai)                                      (K.K.Kareer)

              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:26.02.2021

Gurpreet Sharma.