State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Post Master vs Arun Kr Mehra on 28 April, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET, KOLKATA-700 087. S.C. CASE NO- FA/988/12 (Arisen out of Order Dt. 10/07/12 in Case No. CC/24/2007 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan ) DATE OF FILING: 21.12.12 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 28.04.14 APPELLANTS: 1. The Post Master, Burdwan Head Post Office, P.S. & District- Burdwan. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Burdwan Division, Burdwan Head Post Office, P.S. & District - Burdwan. 3. The Post Master General, South Bengal Region, G.P.O, Kolkata- 700 001. RESPONDENT : Arun Kr. Mehra, 57, R.B. Ghosh Road, P.O, P.S. & District- Burdwan. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag. FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. Sourav Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate. Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate. FOR THE RESPONDENT: _____________________________________________________________________________ : O R D E R :
MR. J.BAG, LD. MEMBER The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 10.07.2012 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan, in DF Case No. 24/2007, whereby, the complaint was allowed in part with cost.
The Complainants case, in brief, was as follows:
The Complainant is an export supplier of wooden and bamboo handicrafts , golf gloves , scarves etc. and carries on business as proprietor of Mehra Merchandise . He had entered into a contract about his business products with Wayne Murray Bajji Handicraft of 3605 Driftwood Dr. Killech, Texas , United States . The Complainant received an order and a sum of Rs. 3,739.16 in Indian currency towards the cost of 10 pieces of 100 % cotton articles from the aforesaid intending purchaser through Joy Electronics, 23, G.T. Road, Burdwan who is the agent of Western Union Money Transfer and thereafter he sent the sample articles on 02.01.2007 through Post Office of Burdwan , by booking a registered parcel containing the specimen articles to the address of the U.S. Company vide R.R. 5031689841N and paid Postal Parcel Charges and speed post receipt was issued . Allegedly, the sample articles were not received by the U.S. Company till
02.02.07 for which the Complainant wrote a letter to OP No.2 on 05.02.2007 alleging non-delivery of the registered parcel. OP No. 2 did not respond. The Complainant has been black listed for bad business practice by the said U.S. Company. On the ground of irreparable loss and injury caused by gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, a complaint with a claim ofRs. 3739/- towards postal charges , Rs.10,000/-towards compensation for mental pain and harassment , Rs. 1,50,000/-for damages, and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs (total Rs. 1,65,739/-) only was lodged.
The complaint was contested by OP No. 1 by filing of written version whereby all material allegations were denied. It was contended that the article was booked at Burdwan Head Post Office and the same was dispatched to Burdwan RMS on the same date of booking i.e., on 02.01.2007 and then dispatched by Burdwan RMS to Kolkata Air Port Sorting Office who in their turn forwarded the same to New York on 20.01.2007 and finally delivered to the correct address on 09.02.2007. Further, it has been asserted that the status of the article was informed to the Complainant on 22.03.2007 . It was further stated that the article being a foreign parcel , required Customs clearance at Kolkata Air Port Sorting before transmission outside India . Delay might be caused but there was no fault or negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Finally, it was stated that articles might not have reached the destination for non-compliance of Custom formalities by the Complainant.
Ld. Forum below observed that no document regarding actual dispatch of the article to the addressee on 09.02.2007 was filed by the OPs. Further, the statement of the OPs that the article might not have reached the destination for non-compliance of Customs formalities by the Complainant gave scope to hold that the articles never reached the addressee , as a result of which the Complainant suffered losses and was blacklisted in India for bad business practice by the U.S. Company. The allegation of the Complainant was considered to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the OPs were directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for loss of business , Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and harassment, Rs. 2,000/- towards Postal cost and Rs. 3,739/- for litigation cost, i.e. total Rs. 25,739/- together with interest @ 10% p.a. on the whole amount from the date of filing of the case, in default whereof, the decreed amount shall carry interest @ 15% p.a. till the compliance of the order.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below the Appellants have come up before this Commission with a prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order claiming that they had no deficiency in service on their part.
We have gone through the Memo. of appeal together with the impugned order , the petition of complaint , W.O. filed by the OPs before the Ld. Forum below and other documents.
The Respondent did not appear and as such the matter was heard ex-parte.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the article in question was sent by Burdwan , Head Post Office, to Burdwan RMS on the same day i.e., on 02.01.2007 vide Burdwan HPO with Parcel list dated 02.01.2007 at Serial No. 1/6 . Burdwan RMS sent the same to Kolkata Air Port Sorting Office with the parcel list dated 03.01.2007 at Serial No. 1/1 . The Kolkata Air Port Sorting office forwarded the same parcel to New York on 20.01. 2007 and finally the registered parcel was delivered to the addressee on 09.02.2007 at 12.16 hours . The information was forwarded to the Complainant on 22.03.2007. As per guideline of the booking by speed post, the sender may claim compensation for delay delivery and the postal department is liable to pay such compensation for such delay delivery. Without filing any claim as admissible under departmental Rules, the Complainant filed a complaint case which is not at all maintainable. It was also argued that the Respondent did not submit any paper in confirmation of the fact that they have been black listed in USA for their business. Further there being a commercial purpose , the matter should not have been entertained by the Ld. Forum below.
Decision with Reasons It is a fact that the Respondent / Complainant sent through Burdwan Head Post Office a registered parcel to an addressee within United States. The Appellant has denied the allegation of the Complainant regarding non-delivery of the article but no document regarding actual dispatch of the article to the addressee on 09.02.2007 was filed by the OPs before the Ld. Forum below. Such fact, along with their statement that the articles might not have reached the destination for non-compliance of Customs formalities by the Complainant prompted the Ld. Forum below to hold that actually the articles never reached the addressee as per the case of the Complainant and as per down loaded web searching dated 02.04.2007 the Complainant was blacklisted in India for business practice by the U.S. Company.
The Complainant, however, does not appear to have made any averment in his complaint that as per down loaded web searching dated , 02.04.2007 he came to know about their being blacklisted by the U.S. Company. Ld. Forum observed that other than the complaint under affidavit no separate evidence on affidavit was filed by the Complainant . If that is the position , then how Ld. Forum below made the observation that as per down loaded web searching dated 02.04.2007 the Complainant became aware of being blacklisted by the U.S. Company is not made clear. Whether the Complainant has been blacklisted for business practice in India by the U.S. Company has not been established with cogent evidence before the Ld. Forum below. The Complainant should have submitted proper evidence in support of his contention that he was blacklisted by the U.S. Company because of non-delivery of the articles against the payment made in advance by the U.S. Company.
It is a fact that the delivery of the registered article sent by Indian Post to a foreign country had to be cleared by Customs authorities. The Complainant does not appear to have checked up with those authorities about the dispatch of the articles to the addressee situated in the United States.
It is also a fact that , as pointed out by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP Appellant, that the Complainant has not preferred any claim before the departmental authorities , though there are provisions under the departmental Rules i.e. Rule 71 (e) of Post Office Guide Part II . That being the legal position, the Complainant should have preferred with all necessary information and evidence his claim before the departmental authorities for due compensation . Since, there is specific legal provision for compensation in case of delay delivery or loss of registered parcel , the Complainant should have taken recourse to such remedy. We are not convinced that the Complainant proved his case about non-delivery of his articles which were dispatched without insurance through Burdwan Post Office or proved his case that the Complainant was blacklisted for business practice by the U.S. Company The impugned order suffers from material irregularity , in so far as Ld. Forum below did not take into consideration the absence of cogent evidence in the matter of blacklisting of the Complainant for the alleged non-delivery of the articles sent by the Complainant and more so , in consideration of the fact that , as stated by Ld. Forum below, other than the complaint under affidavit no separate evidence on affidavit has been filed by the complainant. In spite of observation of the Ld. Forum below that loss can not be properly assessed in absence of complete information and data about the business of the complainant it was held that the allegation of the complainant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. We are unable to accept such a peculiar position . The appeal, in the result, succeeds.
Hence, Ordered that the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest without, however, any costs. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.
Sd/ Sd/ Sri Jagannath Bag Sri Debasis Bhattacharya (Member) (Member)