The instant appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act ‘ ) is at the behest of the Opposite Party to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri ( for  short, Ld. District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No.184/2014.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent Under Section 12 of the Act with certain directions upon the Opposite Party/Appellant like – (a) to pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and (b) to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.

          The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that on 22.07.2014 she consigned an item (Ref. No.CW009282989IN) through Salugara Post Office, Dist- Darjeeling to deliver to her husband Sri Pinaki Roy in Vivekananda Kendriya Vidyalaya in Banderdewa, Papumpera, Arunachal Pradesh, PIN-791123 and the said item was received by her husband on 10.11.2014 in damaged condition.  The husband of the complainant refused to accept the same initially but as the OP did not pay heed to his request, finding no other option accepted the item so delivered in damaged condition.  The complainant’s husband informed the matter to the complainant about delivery of damaged product for which the complainant had visited Salugara Post Office four times to enquire about the status of the item during transaction.  The complainant has stated that being aggrieved, she wrote a written complaint to the OP on 25.08.2014 but it remains unheeded.  Ultimately, the complainant approached the Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Siliguri Regional Office where the parties were directed to appear for discussion but none appeared for the OP.  In that perspective, on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of OP, the complainant lodged with prayer for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony.

          The Appellant being Opposite Party by filing a written version has stated that the registered parcel was received from Parcel Hub, Lakhimpur RMS by the Banderdewa S.O. on 08.11.2014 and while opening the bag, the parcel was found in a damaged condition.  However, the OP has stated that there was no deficiency in services on the part of them and as per Postal Departmental procedure things which is either noxious or likely to injure postal articles cannot be sent.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the Opposite Party i.e. the Post Master of Salugara Post Office, Dist- Darjeeling. To challenge the said order, the Opposite Party has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          I have heard Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal, Ld. Advocate for the appellant.  None appears for the respondent to participate in the hearing.  Seen the materials on record.

          Undisputedly, on 22.07.2014 the respondent had sent an packet item (Ref. No.CW009282989IN) from Salugara Post Ofice, Dist- Darjeeling to be delivered to her husband Sri Pinaki Roy in Vivekananda Kendriya Vidyalaya, Banderdewa Papumpera, Arunachal Pradesh, (PIN-791123) and the same was received by the husband of the respondent on 10.11.2014 (after a long delay of more than three and half months from the date of despatch) in a damaged condition.  From the statements in Paragraph-8 of written version, it would reveal that the said registered parcel was received from Parcel Hub, Lakhimpur R.M.S. by Banderdewa S.O. on 08.11.2014 and at the time of opening the bag of parcel, it was found in a damaged condition.  Therefore, there is no dispute that the parcel sent by the respondent through Salugara P.O., Dist- Darjeeling on 22.07.2014 addressed to her husband received by the husband of respondent on 10.11.2014 in a damaged condition.

          Surprisingly enough, time and again the respondent/complainant visited Salugara P.O. to ascertain the movement of parcel but the Postal Department could not give any explanation to the same.  Finding no other alternative, the respondent lodged a complaint with the Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Siliguri Regional Office and the same was received as pre-litigation mediation on 26.09.2014.  The fact remains that the appellant did not advance any information as to the movement of parcel from 22.07.2014 till 08.11.2014 when the same was received by Banderdewa S.O. on 08.11.2014.  The appellant could not show any courage to produce the relevant manual of Post Office in order to establish the time required to reach a parcel from one place to another.  In any case, it is totally beyond imagination that a parcel will take more than three months to reach in destination in a place situated at a distance of hardly 300/350 kilometers. 

          In the regard, in order to absolve their responsibility, the appellant took a plea that the parcel contains of some house made oily things which were not in perfect condition and the sending of such food items in the parcel is strictly prohibited, violating the Postal norms.  The Ld. District Forum, on this point, has observed – “Regarding the damaged condition of the parcel, the defence adopted by the OP is that complainant posted some oily substance contrary to the rules of Postal Department.  It is not the case of OP that complainant applied force on the Post Master to accept the parcel.  Naturally, the question arises in the mind of lay man what prompted the Post Master to allow the parcel without verifying the same or rejecting the same.  The Post Master had some duties to take care an attention while accepting the parcel from the complainant, but in the record there is no iota of evidence or statement that the OP Post Office had taken steps with due care and attention in allowing the parcel”.

          I do not find any reason to differ the view adopted by the Ld. District Forum.  At the time of hearing, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant has only placed before me a sheet containing the relevant rule which provides –

          “(6)  Any living creature or other things which is either noxious or likely to injure Postal article in course of transmission by Post or any officer or the Post Office (but see clauses 133, 147 to 151)”.  I have requested the Ld. Advocate for the appellant to place before me the relevant book from which the sheet containing of one page has been collected but the Ld. Advocate for the appellant has failed to submit the same.  Even if it is produced, the liability of appellant will not be withered away as there is no explanation at all as to why the parcel took more than three and half months time to reach the destination.  Therefore, the negligence or deficiency on the part of Postal Department is quite apparent.

          The Ld. Advocate for the appellant has tried his level best to overcome the situation by drawing my attention to the affidavit of the petition of complaint  but when the appellant themselves did not advance any explanation far less to speak of reasonable explanation as to cause of delay for more than three and half months for reaching a parcel to its destination within a distance of 300/350 kilometers within country, I am in agreement with the Ld. District Forum that the appellant was negligent or deficient in rendering services to the respondent.

          Ld. Advocate for the appellant has referred me the provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and submitted that due to delay in delivery of damage, no liability will be attributed upon the Postal Department.  For appreciation of the situation, it would be worthwhile to reproduce of provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act –

          “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 article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such a liability may in express turns be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided, an no office 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 wilful act or default”.

          The plain reading of the Section leaves little scope for doubt that unless it is proved that the loss, misdelivery or delay has been cause fraudulently or by a wilfully act or default on the part of his officer, no claim would lie against the Postal Department merely by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to the postal article, as the case may be in the course of transmission of the article by post.

          In the instant case, it is quite evident that due to delay in delivery, the respondent approached the appellant on four occasions and in this regard even he reported to the Postal Department by a complaint through web-site of Indian Postal Department on 20.08.2014 but no action has been taken which signifies apparent wilful act or default.  Therefore, the provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 cannot be a ground to defeat the object behind the enactment of the Act in order to protect a consumer and as such the impugned order should not be interfered with.

          Having heard the Ld. Advocate and on a close scrutiny of the materials on record, I find that the Ld. District Forum has disposed of the complaint by a reasoned order and as the order based on proper reasoning, it should not be interfered with.

          For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed ex-parte.

          The impugned judgement/final order is hereby affirmed.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri for information.