DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOR`UM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.501 of 3-10-2012
Decided on 19-12-2012
Gurvinder Singh # 29252, St.-2nd, Janta Nagar City-Bathinda-151005
........Complainant
Versus
1.The City Post Office Bathinda, Dhobi Bazar near Railway, City-Bathinda-151005.
2.The SRO, RMS Post Office, PF-9 In Railway Junction, Bathinda-151005.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Gurvinder Singh, complainant in person.
For Opposite parties: Sh.M.R Gupta, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). In the instant complaint the complainant has alleged that he has sent 10 registered letters alongwith A.D. cards to the different Govt.s' offices in India and Hon'ble Kings and Queens regarding realization monetary debts. The opposite parties have failed to send back the acknowledgment of all the ten letters to the complainant. The opposite party charged Rs.25/- for each A.D register letter, in foreign cases as directed as per prescribed rules. The delivery of the letters are not confidential and considerable without acknowledgment received by getting signed from the letter receivers on such AD Cards. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions to the opposite parties to deliver back the A.D acknowledgment cards of 10 register letters duly signed by their receivers alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant had booked 10 registered letters from Bathinda City Post Office and Bathinda RMS out of which the opposite parties have delivered 6 registered letters and the acknowledgments were delivered to him in ordinary mail, two letters were delivered to the complainant/sender being could not delivered to the addressee and regarding other they have lodged the complaint on website. The status of the abovesaid letters is as under:-
Sr.No. | Regd.letter No. | Date of booking | Booking Office | Status of article |
|---|
1. RP1225161160IN 8.10.2011 City Post Office, Delivered on BTI 19.10.2011. Informed to complainant on
15.11.2011 as inquired by him.
2. RP774219217IN 15.12.2011 RMS Bathinda, Disposal of this article is pending on website, the reply from delivering office is still awaited. Moreover the complainant had not previously filed any complaint with the department within prescribed period i.e. within three months from the booking of postal article as per post office guide clause 81.
3. RP774203163IN 06.06.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered on 14.6.2012.
4. RP148380813IN 13.06.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered on 22.6.2012.
5. RP774176406IN 25.06.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered to complainant on 28.7.2012.
6. RP148379727IN 23.07.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered on 1.8.2012.
7. RP774177525IN 11.08.2012 RMS Bathinda, Disposal of this article is pending on website, the reply from delivering office is still awaited. Moreover the complainant had not previously filed any complaint with the department.
8. RP116374533IN 27.08.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered on 31.8.2012.
9. RP116374652IN 14.09.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered on 31.8.2012.
10. RP116380026IN 14.09.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered to the complainant on 8.10.2012.
The department of posts has no liability for loss, delay damages to any postal articles in the course of transmission as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The section 6 is reproduced as under:-
“The Govt. shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by Post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by Central Govt. as hereinafter provided, and no officer of 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.”
No complaint was ever received for arbitrary solution from the complainant as alleged or an e-mail has been received by the opposite party No.2 from the complainant. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party No.2 as six acknowledgments were delivered to the complainant in an ordinary mail.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The contentions of the complainant is that he has sent 10 letters by registered post to various Govt.s' offices in India and Hon'ble Kings and Queens regarding realization monetary debts. The complainant had paid Rs.25/- for A.D register letters but he has not received back the acknowledgment cards for all the 10 letters.
6. The opposite parties on the other hand admitted that the complainant had booked 10 registered letters from Bathinda City Post Office and Bathinda RMS out of which they have delivered the 6 registered letters and the acknowledgments were delivered to him in ordinary mail, two letters were delivered to he complainant/sender being could not delivered to the addressee and regarding other they have lodged the complaint on website. The status of the abovesaid letters is as under:-
Sr.No. | Regd.letter No. | Date of booking | Booking Office | Status of article |
|---|
1. RP1225161160IN 8.10.2011 City Post Office, Delivered on BTI 19.10.2011. Informed to complainant on
15.11.2011 as inquired by him.
2. RP774219217IN 15.12.2011 RMS Bathinda, Disposal of this article is pending on website, the reply from delivering office is still awaited. Moreover the complainant had not previously filed any complaint with the department within prescribed period i.e. within three months from the booking of postal article as per post office guide clause 81.
3. RP774203163IN 06.06.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered on 14.6.2012.
4. RP148380813IN 13.06.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered on 22.6.2012.
5. RP774176406IN 25.06.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered to complainant on 28.7.2012.
6. RP148379727IN 23.07.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered on 1.8.2012.
7. RP774177525IN 11.08.2012 RMS Bathinda, Disposal of this article is pending on website, the reply from delivering office is still awaited. Moreover the complainant had not previously filed any complaint with the department.
8. RP116374533IN 27.08.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered on 31.8.2012.
9. RP116374652IN 14.09.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered on 31.8.2012.
10. RP116380026IN 14.09.2012 RMS Bathinda, Delivered to the complainant on 8.10.2012.
The opposite party further submitted that the department of posts has no liability for loss, delay damages to any postal articles in the course of transmission as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The section 6 is reproduced as under:-
“The Govt. shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by Post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by Central Govt. as hereinafter provided, and no officer of 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.”
7. A perusal of Ex.C7 shows that the complainant has tried to place on file IPS Website Tracking but this is the computerized generated statement that has been prepared by the complainant himself. The complainant has himself placed on file Ex.C10 which shows e-mail has not been received at this address.
Ex.C12 is the IPS Web Tracking for Item No.RR047508728IN which shows:-
“ Local Date and Time Country Location Event Type Extra Information
7/3/2012 INDIA DIMC NEW Receive item
4:17:00 PM DELHI 37 at office of
exchange
(Otb)
7/3/2012 INDIA DIMC NEW Insert item
4:20:00 PM DELHI 37 into bag
(Otb)
7/17/2012 SPAIN MADRD Receive item
12:35:00 AM AP at office of
exchange
(Inb)
Reason:
Payment of
7/18/2012 SPAIN 28000 Unsuccessful charges
1:55:00 PM item delivery Measure:Item
attempt (Inb) being held, addressee being notified
7/20/2012 SPAIN Receive item
8:41:00 AM at delivery
office (Inb)
7/20/2012 SPAIN 28000 Deliver item SIGNED BY
8:45:00 AM (Inb) PERSONA
AUTHORIZAD”
The opposite parties have duly replied the complainant from time to time vide Ex.R1 dated 15.11.2011. The relevant portion of this is reproduced as under:-
“In continuation of our letter regarding the Complaint No.151000-04569, it is to inform you that the complaint of Non Delivery of Article of Registered Parcels with Acknowledgment with Transaction No.RP122516160IN on 8.10.2011 of Bathinda city is settled on 15.11.2011 with the following information that 'RL No.RP122516160IN WAS DESPATACHED TO LONDON HEATHROW ENTERED AT SL NO 3/28 IN SPL REGD LIST NO 1/1 DISPATCH NO 206 BY DIMC-1 ON 9.10.2011 THROUGH FLIGHT NO KU 0382 LEAVING ON 12.10.2011 AND RL WAS Delivered on 19.10.2011.”
The opposite parties have also given the details for 10 registered letters and has given reference of Section 6 of The Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The relevant portion of Ex.R1 is reproduced as under:-
“6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage- The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by Post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by Central Govt. as hereinafter provided, and no officer of 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.”
8. The opposite parties have given each and every detail of the letters sent by the complainant. The record of two letters are not available that has been sent for the Website Tracking by the opposite parties. The allegations of the complainant are baseless. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in appeal No.728 of 2007, decided on 26.7.2012 in case titled Postmaster, Head Post Office, Bathinda and other Vs.Parshotam Dass s/o Chiranji Lal, in this the Hon'ble State Commission has discussed the case titled 'Post Master, Imphal and others Vs. Dr.Jamini Devi Sagolband,' 2001 (1) CLT 577, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission held in para No.13:-
“13. That apart acceptance of the contention of the complainant will lead to disastrous consequences. Assuming that 10 lakh postal articles are posted all over India every day (the figure must be much more) and in 1% cases there is delay in delivery or loss of the postal packet, if the government has to pay compensation for 1000 delayed packets a day and if as in case, compensation of Rs.20,000/- is awarded, the Government will have to pay compensation of Rs.21 crores a day which will come to Rs.730 crores a year. No government can bear the burnt of this sort of liability in rendering a valuable public service to the people. Either the postal service will have to be closed down or the charges enhanced drastically to bring home nearly another Rs.800 crores of revenue. It may be noted that we have no correct figure of letters and postal articles sent all over India. According to a judgment of Division Bench of the Kerala High Court to which we shall presently refer it must run into billions. The Government gives much more in service than it gets in revenue. That is the reason for enacting Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act which gives absolute protection to the government against any claim for damages on account of loss of a postal article except in cases and to the extent to which is has been specifically provided in the Act itself. As the Supreme Court has pointed out the Post Office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of the sender for sending of the postal articles to the addressee. It is really a branch of the public service subject to the provisions of the Indian Post Office and the rules made thereunder.”
Further the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held in para Nos.9 and 10:-
“9. In the present case, there is no allegation nor any proof if any officer of the postal department delayed the delivery of the application form fraudulently or by his willful act of default. No such official, if at all, at fault has been made a party to these proceedings nor any such evidence has been led against him. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of Section 6 and the authorities referred to above, the postal department is not liable to pay any compensation.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum has wrongly allowed the complaint which was liable to be dismissed. The appeal, therefore, must succeed and the same is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 30.3.2007 is set aside.”
In the case in hand the 6 acknowledgment cards have already been delivered to the complainant, 2 letters were received undelivered by the postal the department, these have back to re-delivered to the address of the complainant and the 2 letters are under process as the opposite parties have lodged complaint on website.
9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
19-12-2012
Vikramjit Kaur Soni
President
Amarjeet Paul
Member
Sukhwinder Kaur
Member
