State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Siner Post Master vs Dr. Ravinder Kumar on 10 August, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 18 / 2013
Senior Postmaster
Post Office, G.P.O., Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Dr. Ravinder Kumar
R/o 19/2, Rajinder Nagar
Street No. 1, Dehradun
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), Dehradun, Learned Counsel for the
Appellant
Sh. H.L. Khanna, Authorised Representative of Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 10/08/2016
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 57 of 2012.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the respondent - complainant sent two letters by speed post on 24.05.2010 and 27.05.2010 respectively from G.P.O., Dehradun to Great Britain. One of the said two letters contained bank draft worth $55,000/- and the second letter contained certain important documents relating to the bank draft. However, the said letters did not reach the destination place and the same were lost in transit. The complainant lodged a claim with the postal department for compensating him for 2 the loss sustained, but to no avail. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the postal department, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.
3. The appellant - opposite party filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the speed post articles sent by the complainant were lost in transit and the complainant was asked to submit the claim form for payment of compensation admissible under the Departmental Rules; that the complainant did not submit the original speed post receipts, which is required to be submitted along with the claim form; that the complainant did not disclose the contents of the speed post articles at the time of the booking and also did not get the articles insured; that the postal department is exempted from any liability as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 31.12.2012 allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant - opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 83,162/- to the respondent - complainant within a period of 30 days' from the date of the order together with Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. It was also directed that in case the above amount is not paid by the appellant - opposite party within the stipulated period of 30 days', the respondent - complainant shall also be entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the postal department has preferred this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the authorised representative of respondent and gone through the record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the speed post articles 3 sent by the complainant were lost in transit and the postal department has admitted that they are ready to settle the claim as per the departmental rules, but no compensation was paid by the postal department to the complainant on account of the loss sustained by him due to loss of the speed post articles in transit. The postal department has taken the stand that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, they are exempted from any liability and they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The authorised representative of respondent - complainant cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Alwar Vs. Pushpendra Singh; IV (2012) CPJ 722 (NC). In the said case, the application sent through speed post did not reach the destination in time and was delayed. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the postal department should under all probabilities, whether it is in its control or beyond its control, must see to it that letters reach destination in time. It was also held that the letters sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent. It was further held that in such circumstances, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not provide any help to the postal department. In the case at hand too, the postal department has not extended any reason / explanation for loss of the speed post articles in transit and has also not filed any plausible and reliable evidence to prove that the reasons for loss of the speed post articles in transit were beyond their control. Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of the postal department is abundantly clear and the District Forum was justified in allowing the consumer complaint.
6. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant - postal department submitted that the bank draft dated 23.04.2010 in question was issued by Barclays Bank PLC, 1, Wimborne Road, Poole, Dorset BH15 2BB in favour of Principal, 4 Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana and the same was drawn on Barclays Bank PLC, 200, Park Avenue, New York and hence the question of sending the said draft from India to Great Britain does not arise. In support of his submission, learned counsel drew attention to the copy of the bank draft (Paper No. 6kha/2 of the original record). Learned counsel also submitted that the amount awarded by the District Forum is on the higher side and without any basis and justification and the postal department can not be held liable to pay the amount of expenses incurred in travelling of complainant's son from Dehradun to Birmingham in connection with the bank draft in question.
7. We find force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant - postal department that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is quite on the higher side. There is no dispute that the speed post articles sent by the complainant were lost in transit and the postal department has admitted its deficiency in service by loss of the speed post articles in transit. The District Forum has awarded the compensation of Rs. 83,162/-, which does not appear to be justified, for the reason that as is stated above, the bank draft itself was issued by Barclays Bank PLC, 1, Wimborne Road, Poole, Dorset BH15 2BB and hence the expenses of travelling of complainant's son from Dehradun to Birmingham can not be awarded. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to be awarded to the complainant, would be just and proper. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum towards mental agony is on the higher side and the same need to be reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. The litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum are also on the higher side and in our view, the same also need to be reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. Further, the direction passed by the District Forum to pay 5 interest @9% p.a. in case the amount is not paid within a period of 30 days' from the date of the order, is not justified and the same need to be set aside. This way, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly.
8. Appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 31.12.2012 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellant - postal department is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent - complainant together with Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The direction passed by the District Forum to pay interest @9% p.a. in case the amount is not paid within a period of 30 days' from the date of the order, is set aside. Costs of the appeal made easy.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K