Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/274/2017

Manager, Post Office - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rupinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

G C Babbar, Adv.

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	274 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.11.2017
Date of Decision	:	13.11.2017

1. Manager, Post Office, Sector 22, Chandigarh
2. Manager, Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

 

V e r s u s

 

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

  ….. Respondent/Complainant

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh.G.C. Babbar, Advocate for the appellants.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against an order dated 01.09.2017, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only) vide which, it  allowed consumer complaint bearing no.287 of 2017, filed by the complainant (now respondent), granting him following relief:-

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”. 

2.         Before the Forum, it was the case of the respondent that he had booked one parcel with Sector 22 Post Office, Chandigarh, vide Receipt No.EP349343070IN on 17.10.2016 from its Counter No.1. The said parcel was containing uniforms/garments, amounting to Rs.16,433/-, purchased vide bill no.422, dated 15.10.2016, from Vikas Traders, Sector 45, Chandigarh, which was to be sent at Imphal, Amar School Uniforms, Thangal Bazar, Imphal.  It was stated that the said parcel was never delivered to its destination by the appellants. It was further stated that when the matter was taken up with the appellants, they issued letter/email dated 23.11.2016 mentioning that the booked article has been treated as ‘lost’. It was further stated that due to non-delivery/loss of articles contained in the said parcel, the respondent suffered huge financial loss, besides mental agony and physical harassment, on account of deficient services rendered by the appellants. When grievance of the respondent was not redressed, left with no alternative, he filed consumer complaint, referred to above, before the Forum, out of which, this appeal has arisen.
3.         Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellants, wherein factual matrix of the case, with regard to booking of the said parcel for Imphal; its non-delivery to the destination, as the same was lost in transit, were admitted. It was stated that all efforts and inquiries were made to trace out the said parcel from various intermediary offices, but when the same was not traced, it was treated as ‘lost’.  It was further stated that the Postal Department was completely exempted from any liability for the loss, delay and damage to any article, during the course of transmission, by Post. It was further stated that the appellants had limited liability, as prescribed under the relevant Rule(s), for the loss of postal article i.e. to pay double the postal charges paid by the sender or Rs.1000/- whichever is less. Prayer was made to  dismiss the complaint.
4.          In the rejoinder filed, the respondent reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and repudiated those contained in written version of the appellants.
5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6.         After hearing the contesting parties and on going through the evidence and record of the case, the Forum allowed the complaint, as referred to, in opening paragraph of this order, while holding the appellants deficient in rendering service.
7.         We have heard Counsel for the appellants, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully.
8.          It has vehemently been contended by Counsel for the appellants that the Forum was wrong in allowing the complaint. It was further contended that the respondent is not a consumer, as the uniforms, which were sent through parcel, to Amar School aforesaid, were for commercial purpose. It was further contended that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, completely exempts the appellants for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to the articles, in course of transmission. It was further contended that it was only after detailed inquiry conducted by the appellants that they came to the conclusion that the parcel in question, be declared as ‘lost’.
9.         We have gone through the contents of the order under challenge and found that the Forum while referring various judgments passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, in similar cases, allowed the complaint, while holding as under:

“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”.

10.           We are satisfied that the relief granted to the respondent, by the Forum, vide order impugned, is perfectly justified. It may be stated here that the only stand taken by the appellants, in this case is that a detailed online inquiry in respect of the parcel, in question, was conducted by them, but when the same was not traced, it was declared as ‘lost’. However, no irregularity was found in transmission of the said parcel. It may be stated here that no cogent and convincing document, depicting name of the Officer who conducted the said alleged final inquiry; name of the person who loaded/unloaded the said parcel at relevant place; the last place where that parcel was seen; name of the persons against whom inquiry was conducted; last place where the said parcel was found lost, was placed on record; name of the person who was found guilty of negligence in performing duties; any department action having been taken against him etc. On the other hand, if we go through the contents of document dated 23.11.2016 at pages 8 to 10 of the Forum file i.e. interdepartmental communication having been carried out by the appellants, it reveals that despite making number of requests, clear picture of the article was not known to anybody and it was also not known as to, at whose end it is treated as lost or untraced. Despite making request to provide clear picture, nothing happened positive, as a result whereof, the case of the respondent was closed in the middle at the cost of GH Division, without coming to any positive findings (this fact is found from the communication at page 8 of the Forum file). Attitude of the appellants, appears to hide the real reason for the wrong doing of their employee(s), in not delivering the said parcel, to its destination. Such conduct of the appellants/Postal Department, leads to an irresistible conclusion that there was a willful default on the part of their official(s) concerned, which is not being disclosed and, therefore, the case of the respondent falls within the ambit of the exception carved out under Section 6 of the said Act.  Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act providing that Government shall not be liable for the loss, damage, non-delivery or mis-delivery of postal articles entrusted to its charge, was intended by the legislature to serve as shield for the protection of the post office and its officials in the legitimate discharge of their functions, but the shield cannot be converted into a weapon of Inequity in the hands of a Government Department, enjoying a monopoly of an essential service. Section 6 of the said Act, does not empower the post office or its officials to do what they like with the articles entrusted to their care or commit wrongful acts against the owners of those articles. That by itself is not conclusive and does not get blanket public interest immunity from disclosure, by way of evidence. Having held so, and there being a clear-cut deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(g) of the CPA, 1986, we are of the opinion that a reasonable compensation awarded by the Forum to the tune of Rs.15,000/- alongwith refund of the value of the goods and postage charges, in favour of the respondent, is  completely  justified. 
11.         Now coming to the contention raised by the appellants that the respondent is not a consumer, it may be stated here that the same is devoid of merit. Not even a single document has been placed on record by the appellants that the respondent was carrying out a business of uniform, on large scale, by employing large number of employees and was earning huge profits out of the sale thereof. On the other hand, the respondent has clarified in his rejoinder filed before the Forum, that he was carrying out the said business of selling uniform(s), for earning his livelihood. As such, in the absence of any evidence, in that regard, bald contention raised by the appellants, has no significant value, in the eyes of law, and as such, stands rejected.
12.         No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the appellants.
13.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
14.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

13.11.2017

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

Rg.