(Delivered on 19/10/2016)

Per Hon’ble Mr. S.B.Sawarkar, Member

1. The instant appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Nagpur passed in complaint No. CC/515/2013, dated 6/2/2015 granting partly the complaint and directing opposite party ( for short OP) Nos.  1 to 3 to return the cost of lost articles of Rs. 30,000/-  to the complainant with Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 3,000/- as a cost of complaint and the order be complied with by OP Nos. 1 to 3 severally or together in the span of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order.
2. The consumer complaint in brief is that the complainant  through OP No. 1,  booked  a parcel  after proper packing and   wrapping  and paid Rs. 1,066/- as the cost. The parcel was sent to Mr. Andres in Germany and was weighing 980 grams and the declared  the value to be Rs. 8,000/-. The parcel was booked on 24/12/2012 from Nagpur. The complainant then complained that the parcel contained three toys of markleen model train, signal assembly and gate assembly toys for repairs. He had put them safely in the boxes with cloth cover and paid the transport cost of Rs. 1,066/- to the OP of which he received receipt. After sending the parcel from Nagpur through OP No. 1, he made enquiry with the addressee in Germany, when he was informed by the addressee in Germany with email on 17/01/2013 that they had received the parcel but the parcel was empty and there were two sets of documents. One set was the postal receipt and the second set was the papers of some other parties who had sent the articles to France.
3. After receipt of this information, the complainant  made a complaint on 18/01/2013 to OP No. 1 and also sent his complaint to OP No. 2 and OP No. 3, the customs department at Mumbai. The complainant received a letter from the OP Nos. 2 and 3 that their duty is to scan the foreign bound parcel and provide permission to transport it, if found all right. The OP No. 1 also informed  the complainant that they conducted the enquiry into the dispatch of the parcel and found that the parcel was dispatched in intact condition to Germany and was delivered properly. Hence no laxity or mischief. Complainant   also received a reply from the OP No. 3 that the parcel was received in good outward condition and was dispatched in good outward condition with correct weight and without any adverse report. The complainant therefore filed the consumer complaint before District Forum claiming that  the articles in the parcel were not received by the addressee and the parcel was empty with two sets of papers and that Ops did not give proper explanation and therefore claimed deficiency in service on the part of Ops and requested  to direct the OPs to provide him the cost of lost articles of Rs. 30,000/-, compensation of Rs.  20,000/- for physical and mental harassment and cost of complaint with a request for punishment to the responsible officers.
4. On notice, OP Nos. 1 to 3 appeared before the Forum and countered the complaint with a common version admitting booking of the parcel but submitting that the parcel was sent in a proper way without any outward disturbance and with a proper weight. The receiving foreign postal authority also did not make any complaint regarding tampering with  the parcel and it was received also by the addressee without any complaint indicating that the parcel was sent without any tampering with or mischief. The OP also claimed that as per the post office guide  part II clause  125 (c ) if any person  has a complaint of loss of the parcel or loss of articles, it is necessary to make a complaint at the time of receipt of the parcel and then should submit such tampered parcel which is enquired. Then the compensation for loss is provided. In the present case, a proper enquiry is conducted and it is found that the parcel was sent in a proper condition and was received also in proper condition. The complainant had declared the cost of the articles to be Rs. 8,000/- at the time of booking and is now claiming Rs. 30,000/-. Hence OPs  requested to dismiss the complaint.
5. The learned Forum heard both the parties and held that the parcel was delivered empty and hence there being deficiency in the service on the part of OPs and therefore passed the order supra. 
6. Aggrieved against the order, the original OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed this  appeal. Hence they are called as appellants. Advocate Mr. Agrawal appeared on behalf of appellants. The original complainant is referred as respondent in appeal who pleaded his case personally.
7. The advocate of appellants submitted that the parcel was booked and was sent to  their office at Mumbai and was sent in proper condition to Germany where the receiving German authority did not raise any objection regarding tampering or any change in weight which  shows that the parcel was sent in proper weight and outward condition. It was delivered to the addressee and was accepted without any complaint which indicates that the parcel was of proper weight and proper outward condition. When the weight and outward condition is proper there is no laxity or mischief  that took place in the dispatch and transport of parcel and it was delivered properly. He further argued that the respondent declared the cost of the parcel of Rs. 8,000/- and is now claiming Rs. 30,000/-.
8. The learned advocate  of the appellants further submitted that as  per Clause 125 ( c) of Postal Guide, the respondent has to submit the tampered parcel to show the loss upon which the enquiry is conducted to fixed the responsibility of the loss and the compensation is provided. But the parcel is not submitted. The learned Forum did not appreciate the proper enquiry and the explanation given by the appellants and saddled them with the compensation through erroneous order which therefore needs to be set aside.
9. The respondent pleaded as per the complaint stating that he went from one authority to another authority to get the proper reply as to how the parcel was delivered empty with two sets of paper. One is the receipt of postal authority and the second  is  a set containing papers of some other party sending articles to France. Therefore the appellants have been careless and  allowed the parcel to be tampered with causing loss of the toy articles sent through it for repairing by the respondent. Hence the order passed by the Forum being correct and justifiable needs to be confirmed.
10. We considered aforesaid the contentions of both the parties and perused the papers filed by the respondent. We find that the respondent received the e-mail giving him information of receiving the empty parcel by the addressee on 17/01/2013, when he himself made the enquiry through email about the receipt of parcel. The addressee then has informed him that it received the empty parcel containing only papers which he sent it as Xerox copies to respondent. There is no reason to disbelieve information furnished by addressee about his receiving empty parcel.  It shows that the articles in the parcel sent from Nagpur must have been removed  and the parcel must have been re-prepared as it was at the time of sending from Nagpur. That is how the addressee received only papers inside it. Otherwise he would have received the articles and he would not have replied that he did not receive the articles. We therefore find that the parcel being delivered without the inside articles is the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant No. 1 (OP No. 1). It is therefore incumbent upon appellant No. 1 (Original OP No. 1) to compensate for the loss of articles.
11. We find that the respondent declared the cost of the articles to be Rs. 8,000/- at the time of dispatching them from Nagpur. Now the respondent cannot go back and make effort to claim Rs. 30,000/- by saying  that the cost was more. He is now only entitled  to get that much amount which he had declared at the time of sending the article.
12. We therefore decide to partly allow the appeal by reducing and providing only that amount of compensation equal to amount of Rs. 8,000/- which the respondent had declared at the time of sending the article.
13. Recording the reason as above, we modify the order of the Forum as below by partly allowing the appeal as below. We find that appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Assistant Director Foreign post and Assistant Commissioner customs Postal who have not booked the parcel and also have not received any charges for the dispatch of articles. Therefore they cannot be held responsible for the deficiency  in service and hence  their  appeal is  to be allowed and the order needs to be  set aside as it is concerned with appellant Nos. 2 and 3. Hence the order.

ORDER

1. The appeal is partly allowed.
2. The direction of the Forum given in Clause Nos. 2 and 3 of the impugned order is modified and substitanted as under.  

1. The original OP No. 1/appellant No. 1 is ordered to pay the complainant Rs. 8,000/- as cost of lost articles.
2.  The OP No. 1 to provide the complainant, compensation for mental and physical harassment of  Rs. 5,000/- and cost of complaint of  Rs. 3,000/-

3. The order of the Forum is set aside so far as it pertains to original OP Nos. 2 and 3/appellant Nos. 2 and 3.
4. Parties to bear their own cost in appeal.
5. Copy of the order be provided to both the parties, free of cost.