State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Senior Post Master, General Post ... vs Dr.Harjinder Singh on 27 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.5 of 2010
Date of institution: 04.01.2010
Date of decision : 27.01.2010
1. The Senior Post Master, General Post Office, Jalandhar City.
2. The Manager Customer Care Centre (Postal), Jalandhar City.
3. The Director, Foreign Post, New Delhi - 2.
.....Appellants
Versus
Dr.Harjinder Singh s/o S.Prabh Singh resident of 71, Master Tara Singh Nagar,
Jalandhar City.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 01.12.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kapurthala Additional Bench at
Jalandhar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Dr.Harjinder Singh respondent had booked a foreign air parcel with the appellants on 20.11.2007. He paid a sum of Rs.1630/- to the appellants as postal/insurance charges. It was to be delivered in Australia.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondent made the enquiries from the appellants about the delivery of parcel but no satisfactory reply was forthcoming. Again after the expiry of 15 days, the respondent made the enquiries from the appellants but to no effect. Similar enquiries were again made by the respondent on 16.01.2008. The respondent received back the parcel on 10.04.2008 in a mutilated condition. The appellants failed to respond to the enquiries made by the respondent about the non delivery of parcel to the addressee. Rather the First Appeal No.5 of 2010 2 appellants demanded a sum of Rs.1112/- from the respondent if he intended to take back the undelivered parcel. The respondent, therefore, had to deposit a sum of Rs.1112/- with the appellants. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondent filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (Additional Bench at Jalandhar) (in short "the District Forum") for compensation. Costs and interest were also prayed.
3. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the respondent had got booked a foreign air parcel vide receipt dated 20.11.2007 and payment of Rs.1630/- as postal charges/registration fee was made according to weight of the foreign article. It was to be delivered in Australia. Since it was a foreign parcel, therefore, no general time frame of delivery could be fixed nor was any such undertaking given by the appellants.
4. It was further pleaded that the air parcel was sent to Australia vide Delhi-Sydney Airmail Despatch No.251 dated 23.11.2007 through flight No.EKO513/EK 0412. The parcel remained undelivered in Australia. It was returned to Kolkata Exchange Office through Sydney - Mumbai Sea with despatch No.001 dated 15.02.2008. The parcel in question was received at Foreign Post, New Delhi through Kokatta Sea Extract Parcel Bill No.C13 dated 19.03.2008. This parcel after release by the custom was sent to CED Delhi for Jalandhar RMS/PL on 3.4.2008 for effecting delivery to its sender. Accordingly, it was delivered to the sender on 10.4.2008.
5. It was further pleaded that the respondent had lodged a complaint on 26.12.2007 regarding non-delivery of registered parcel at the destination. The matter was taken up with AIR Mail Sporting Division, New Delhi and it was found that the air parcel had remained undelivered in Australia. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
First Appeal No.5 of 2010 3
6. Parties produced the affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
7. The learned District Forum considered the matter and accepted the complaint partly vide impugned order dated 1.12.2009 and directed the appellants to make the payment of Rs.2000/- as compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. and Rs.1000/- as costs.
8. Hence, the appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appellants are protected by the provision of Section 6 of the Post Office Act.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. Admittedly, the respondent had made the payment of Rs.1630/- to the appellants while booking the foreign air parcel with the appellants. The parcel was got booked on 20.11.2007 and it was returned to the respondent on 10.4.2008 i.e. after a period of about 4 to 5 months. Since the parcel was entrusted by the respondent to the appellants, therefore, the respondent was a consumer qua the appellants. It is not disputed that the said parcel was not disbursed at the destination. Rather it was returned to the respondent after recovering a sum of Rs.1112/-. It means, therefore, that the appellant had to make the payment of Rs.1630/- as postal charges plus Rs.1112/- as return charges.
12. The learned District Forum has awarded only a sum of Rs.2000/- with interest. Virtually, therefore, the learned District Forum has not even refunded the amount which the respondent had to pay to the appellants. Besides that the learned District Forum has awarded costs of Rs.1000/-.
13. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the parcel remained undisbursed in Australia. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Moreover, the appellants would be at liberty to recover the amount from Australia office. Hence, it was prayed that the impugned judgment dated 1.12.2009 be set aside.
14. This submission has been considered.
First Appeal No.5 of 2010 4
15. As discussed above, since the respondent had entrusted the parcel to the appellants, therefore, he is a consumer qua the appellants. If the parcel remained undisbursed at the destination although the parcel has been returned to the respondent after a period of 4-5 months, the deficiency in service lies on the part of the appellants.
16. The appellants would be at liberty to seek reimbursement from any other person liable for not delivering the parcel at the destination or for making the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1112/- while returning the article to him.
17. Keeping in view the discussions held above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
18. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.1625/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs.1625/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants. The remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent immediately.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER January 27, 2010.
Paritosh