| ORDER | DATE OF FILING : 19.01.2015. DATE OF S/R : 24.02.2015. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30.05.2016. Tapan Kumar Bhowmic, Bidyabnagishpara, P.O. & P.S. Kalna, District Burdwan, PIN 713409.………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT. 1. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Howrah Division, P.O. Howrah, P.S. Howrah, PIN 711101. 2. The Sub Post Master, Botanic Garden P.O., P.S. Howrah, District Howrah.……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak . F I N A L O R D E R - This is ‘an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Tapan Kumar Bhowmick, praying for a direction on the o.ps., the Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Howrah Division, and the Sub Post Master, Botanic Garden Post Office, to pay him Rs. 24,602/- being the cost of parcel packet with postal charge and Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical harassment.
- The case of the petitioner is that he sent one EMI item no. EW 346648568 on 03.03.2014 by speed post from Botanical Garden Post Office and the item was destined to reach Alaska Fair Banks, USA. The parcel package contained some garments and money purse cost of which was Rs. 21,535/- and the postage was Rs. 3,067/-. Thus the petitioner spent Rs. 24,602/- in total. The parcel did not reach his son who was in USA and the postal authority declared the item lost and sanctioned him Rs. 2,407/- as he knocked at the door of the post office starting from Botanical Garden to New Delhi. He did not accept Rs. 2,407/- and filed this case. This is a clear example of deficiency in service on the part of postal authority who is service provider of the petitioner, who is a consumer.
- The o.ps. contested the case by filing a written version stating that the case is not maintainable and also the case is barred by limitation. They further submitted that the o.p. sent EMS Foreign article no. EW 34664868 IN and booked the same at Botanical Garden Post Office on 03.03.2014 addressed to one Tara Prasad Bhowmick of 205 Madcap Lane Unit B, Fair Baska Alaska, ZIP 99709-6568 but the same parcel was lost in transit and Sr. Superintendent, Howrah Division, issued sanction of Rs. 2,407/- in favour of the petitioner for payment as compensation as per Departmental norms. But the petitioner Tapan Kuamr Bhowmick did not accept the same and filed this case praying for compensation of Rs. 24,602/- including the postal charges, the cost of article and postal charges and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. Sending such valuable garments are prohibited as per provision of Item no. 6.1 below Article 18 of Universal Postal Union ( Edition 2013 ) which specifically mentioned that valuable articles cannot be sent under post and also the parcel was not insured and thus the case has no merit and be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS : - All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit as well as documents in the form of registered postal receipt showing theEMI item no. EW 346648568 IN was sent to Tara Prosad Bhowmik in Alaska USA by one Tapan Kumar Bhowmick from B. Garden Post Office on 03.03.2014 and total postal charges was Rs. 3,067/-. He also filed his letter dated 06.05.2014 addressed to the post master stating that the parcel contained original B.E. Certificate of his son who would face severe difficulties in future. He also filed one letter addressed to him by SSPOS, Howrah, dated 31.7.2014 stating that the item has been declared as lost by USPS. The petitioner filed another letter dated 19.8.2014 addressed to DSRM Kolkata of 38/3, L. N. Chakraborty Lane, claiming the cost of parcel including postage being Rs. 24,602/- and he also filed letter dated 09.12.2014 from the Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Howrah Division, asking him to contact the post master and take payment after submitting necessary documents to the S.P.M., Shibpur Post Office, and as the Sr. Superintendent Post Office sanctioned Rs. 2,406.75 p. i.e., Rs. 2,407/- considering the case.Mr. Bowmick also filed his I.T. Card showing permanent account number and his voter’s identity card. The o.p. post office on the other hand filed rules and regulations of the postal department specially relating to the foreign posts wherein general regulations applicable to letter post is stated in detail and in regulations 71 is laid down the liability of the post office in case of loss of registered letter post article and it is stated therein that the business is liable only for the loss of registered article in accordance with the provision of Universal Postal Convention to the extent of Rs. 220/- for each registered article and Rs. 1,110/- in respect of each registered bulk bag and no indemnity is payable for the loss or damage to the contains of registered articles or registered bulk pack. Further in Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1998 is given exemption from the liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage and it is stated therein in Section 6 that the Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post and no officer of the post offices shall incur liability by reasons of any such loss unless he caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or defect. Our Supreme Court in the case of Arul Mighu Dhandayudhapani Swamy vs. Director General of Post Office opined that any direction to pay some reasonable amount for the lapse of post master would go contrary to the Postal Rules and Regulations when payment is prohibited and our Supreme Court accepted such rules of the post office guide and dismissed the appeal even though the Supreme Court was constrained to make observations that lack of knowledge on the part of the post master caused a ancient temple of Tamil Nadu to loss of substantial amount even though the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the temple authority. Our National Commission opined in the case of S.S. Chauhan vs. United of India 1996 ( 1) CPR page 121 that a complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act, 1998 as under Section 6 of the Post Office Act the Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of any loss or delay or damage to any postal article unless fraud has been practised by the employee or he defaulted or acted willfully.
- In the instant case the complainant used the service of EMS speed post at Botanical Garden Post Office for sending some documents and some garments and purse to Alaska in USA, but the parcel did not reachthe son of the petitioner at Alaska on the plea of the postal department that the parcel was lost in transit. Keeping in mind the rules and regulations relating to foreign posts as laid down in Post Office Guide Part II as well as keeping in mind Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1998, this Forum finds that even though it is palpably clear that there was some negligence on the part of the postal department which conceded loss of parcel article and such act amounted to act of deficiency on their part yet they get an exemption from liability for such loss as the postal article was lost in course of transmission by post and there was no willful act or default or any fraudulent act on the part of the postal employees. So the postal department cannot be held responsible for such act. However, postal department sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2,407/- and the petitioner is to accept the same as the department cannot sanction any more against the rule.
In view of above discussion and findings this Forum finds that the petitioner succeeded in proving the case and is entitled to the sanctioned compensation of Rs. 2,407/- as per Rules of the Postal Department in case of loss of lost parcel. In the result, the application succeeds. Court fee paid is correct. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 24 of 2015 ( HDF 24 of 2015 ) be and same is allowed on contest without costs against the O.P. The petitioner is entitled Rs. 2,407/- and the O.Ps. are directed to pay the amount to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order. The complainant is at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period if the same not complied. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( B. D. Nanda ) President, C.D.R.F., Howrah. | |
