By Sri. A. A. Vijayan,  President

    The complaint is filed by complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
1.    The dispute is regarding non delivery of parcel sent through first opposite party.  The averments contained in the complaint can be summarized as follows:-
    Complainant  booked a parcel bearing No. EL-6681874861N of Ayurvedic Medicines  and food items on 16-05-2013  by RMS (speed post) from Vengara Post office to Germukh SO., Guwahati, Assam and paid a fee of Rs.719/-.  The parcel  was addressed to Mr. Ajayakumar Singh (P.S.), E.D. Office, N.H. P.C. Ltd., Sabansiri Lower Project, Gerumukh (PO), (via) Gogamukh, Dhemraj(Dt.), Assam. Pin-787035.  On the same day the parcel was bagged and despatched to Kozhikkode SH.  The third opposite party received the  baggage on the same day.  On 17-05-2013 third opposite party despatched the bag to Calicut Airport S.O.  On 18-05-2013 Palam TMO received the bag  and on the same day it was despatched to Delhi RMS.  On 19-05-2013 Delhi RMS received the bag and it was despatched to Guwahati Sorting HUB.  But the parcel is never received by the addressee till now.  The complainant made several enquiries directly and through registered post but the opposite parties were reluctant in giving proper reply.  Thus complainant suffered irreparable  hardship and mental agony.  The illegal, deplorable negligent and unscrupulous acts of the opposite parties amounts to  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Thus opposite parties may be directed to deliver the parcel immediately and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
2.    Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version as follows:-
    Since opposite parties officers are under Union of India, Union of India is a necessary party and thus the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.  It is true that complainant had booked a parcel at Vengara Post Office on 16-05-2013  destined to Gerumukh, Assam.  Then the said parcel reached Delhi RMS on 18-05-2013 and then it was sent to Guwahati  Sorting Hub on 19-05-2013 itself.  Enquiries revealed that the said speed post article  despatched from Delhi RMS was not received by Guwahati Sorting Hub.  It is presumed  that the said bag was lost during the transit from Delhi RMS to Guwahati Sorting Hub.  Inspite of earnest attempt made by the opposite parties to find out the article they failed in that attempt.  The complaint received from the sender was given due importance  and a speedy enquiry  was conducted.  It is now revealed that the said article  is lost during transit.  After getting reply from the Post Master General, Guwahati HQ Region, Assam Circle, it was decided to settle the case granting eligible  compensation to the sender of the article.  Moreover complainant was intimated the position of the complaint at each stage and thus there was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the opposite parties in the  enquiry in this matter.  Inspite of granting compensation  the complainant did not receive the same.  The complainant is not entitled for any further compensation.  Speed post service as such  do not guarantee insurance to the contents of the article.  For getting insurance coverage it should have been sent as insurance posts.  The loss of the said  speed post article was not as consequence of any willful or negligent act of any postal employees.  Transmission of postal article is regulated by Indian Post Office Rules 1933 framed by Government of India in exercises of the powers conferred by Indian Post Office Act 1898.  As per Rule 66B of Indian Post Office  Rules 1933 compensation for the loss of a speed post article shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less.  Thus the only liability of the postal department in the case  of speed post articles being lost  misdelivered, delayed or damaged is limited.  The compensation can be given only under Rule 66B which was introduced on 21-01-1999.  As per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898, the Government is exempted from any liability for 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 the government and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability for any such loss misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.  So  except the compensation as provided in the statutes no other compensation is payable to the complainant as per law.  Therefore the complaint is to be dismissed.
3.    Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A11 were marked.  Opposite parties filed affidavit and Ext.B1 to B6 were marked.
4.    Points arise for consideration are:-
    (i)    Whether claim of the complainant is maintainable.
   (ii)    What is the extent of the liabilities of the opposite parties.
  (iii)    Relief and costs.
5.    Point No.(i):-
    The opposite parties raised a contention that they being the officers of Central Government the complaint filed against them for compensation without impleading the Union of India  is not maintainable and thus complaint is bad for non joinder of  necessary parties.  It is significant to note that the Consumer Protection Act was enacted to redress the grievance of the consumers against the service providers  in the event of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. Therefore a complaint against the service providers is maintainable if there is any deficiency of service on their part.  In the case of  this nature the delivery of postal articles is vested in postal department and in the event of non delivery or misdelivery etc. that would be counted as deficiency of their service.  Since the duty to deliver postal articles is vested in postal department if a deficiency is effected in their service responsibility is vested in the postal department.  Moreover Section 6 of Post Office Act provides that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason  of the loss misdelivery or delay 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 the  Government  and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability  by reason of such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful   act or default.  This Section is applicable   when article is also sent by speed post.  Therefore the above Section clearly exempted the Government from liability for the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage in the course of transmission by pot.  If that be so even vicarious liability also cannot be imposed on Government.  When a suit or proceedings are initiated against the Central Government or State Government official usually  the Union of India or the State as the case may be  will be impleaded as party  to the proceedings that is done on account of vicarious liability of the Union of India or the State for the act done by it's officials.  If Government has no liability and enjoys complete immunity then there is no meaning in impleading Government as a party to  the proceedings.  As found above Section 6 of  Post Office Act gives a  complete immunity to  Central Government in the case of loss of postal article during transmission.  In the present case  also the article sent by complainant was lost in transmission.  Even in such case  the Central Government cannot be made liable in view of the above provision.  So the contention taken by the opposite parties that  the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties seems to be untenable.  
6.    Point No.(ii):-
    Admittedly a postal article had been sent by complainant  to the addressee in Assam on                                   16-05-2013.  Though the parcel was found reached at Guwahati on 19-05-2013, thereafter it was found missing.  From the records it is seen that the complainant sent several letters to authorities from 07-06-2013 onwards.  The first letter sent on 07-06-2013  is given a reply which is marked as Ext.A5.  After that on 10-06-2013, 19-06-2013, 06-07-2013, 25-09-2013 and 11-10-2013, several letters were sent by  complainant and none of these letters are seen replied.  It is alleged by complainant  that whenever he enquired about the fate of his parcel the opposite parties deplorably and negligently turned down the queries of the complainant.  The attitude of the opposite parties revealed by complainant is fortified by the records also.  If the statute .provides a duty for the official a non performance of that duty amounting to  deficiency of service.  In the present case it is clear from the conduct of the opposite parties that thee is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Therefore we can rightly hold that the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency of service.
7.    The complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  But even if  the officials of the postal department are found guilty a limit is prescribed for ordering compensation by Indian Post Office Rules.  A new Rule 66B is inserted  therein which provides that in the event o loss of speed post articles or loss of contents or damages to the contents compensation shall be double the amount of postal fee speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less.    Thus the maximum compensation to be awarded in the case of loss of speed post articles is statutorily  fixed at Rs.1,000/-.  Therefore complainant cannot claim more compensation  than the statute provides.  It is true that in many cases the gravity of the loss sustained by sender of an article or the addressee cannot be counted in terms of money.  But when statute fixed the maximum compensation to be awarded in a particular case the judicial body or quasi judicial body cannot go beyond that unless and until that provision is declared to be unconstitutional by a competent Court.  Therefore in the present case though the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties is proved the compensation for an amount of more than Rs.1,000/-  cannot be awarded.  Considering the circumstances we find that the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,000/- only.  Point is decided accordingly.
8.    Point No.(iii):-
    On the basis of the findings on the above points we allow this   complaint partly and in view of the findings  that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties  we order the opposite parties  to pay Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation to complainant together with cost of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only).  The opposite parties shall pay the above amount within one month from the date of receipt of  copy of this order, failing which they shall pay the same with interest @ 12% per annum from that date till  realization.

        Dated  this 30th   day  of  June,  2016.

                                          A. A. VIJAYAN,  PRESIDENT

R. K. MADANAVALLY,  MEMBER                              

 MINI MATHEW, MEMBER

    
APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant        :   Nil
Documents marked on the side of  the complainant        :   Ext.A1 to A11
Ext.A1        :   Photo copy of the letter dated, 07-06-2013 by complainant to 1st opposite party.
Ext.A2        :   Photo copy of the letter dated, 21-01-2014 by complainant to 3rd  opposite party.
Ext.A3        :   Photo copy of the letter dated, 10-06-2013 by complainant to 4th opposite party.
Ext.A4        :   Photo copy of the copy of letter dated, 17-06-2013 by  Supervisor, 
            HRO(R) AMSD, New Delhi to complainant.
Ext.A5        :   Photo copy of the letter dated, 22-06-2013 by 4th opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A6        :   Photo copy of the letter dated, 19-06-2013 by complainant to Post Master, 
            RMS Division, New Delhi.
Ext.A7        :   Photo copy of the letter dated, 06-09-2013 by complainant to 3rd  opposite party.
Ext.A8        :   Photo copy of the letter dated, 13-09-2013 by 4th opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A9        :   Photo copy of the letter dated, 25-09-2013 by complainant to 2nd  opposite party.
Ext.A10    :   Photo copy of the letter dated, 11-10-2013 by complainant to 3rd  opposite party.
Ext.A11    :   Photo copy of Memo dated, 23-12-2014 by Superintendent of Post Offices, 
            Tirur Division, Tirur to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties    :   Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties    :    Ext.B1 to B6
Ext.B1        :    Details of track report obtained from India Post webwite for the Speed 
             Post article No.EL668187486IN
Ext.B2        :    True copy of the sanction granting eligible compensation to complainant
             for loss of the speed post article.
Ext.B3        :    True copy of Common order of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes  Redressal                  Commisson, New Delhi dated, 18-09-2002 in Revision Petition 1035/2002
Ext.B4        :    Gazette Notification No.GSR 40(E) dated, 21-01-1999.                        
Ext.B5        :    True copy of Common order of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes  Redressal                  Commisson, New Delhi dated, 02-12-1999 in Revision Petition 986/1996
Ext.B6        :    True copy of Common order of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes  Redressal                  Commisson, New Delhi dated, 18-09-2002 in Revision Petition 1035/2002.

                                    A. A. VIJAYAN,  PRESIDENT

                                              
R. K. MADANAVALLY,  MEMBER                 

MINI MATHEW, MEMBER