State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajesh Tyagi vs Sr. Supdt. Of Post Office on 18 April, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 18th April, 2006 Complaint Case No. C-189/95 Shri Rajesh Tyagi Complainant 1-C, Flag Staff Road, In person. (Off. 24, Alipur Road,), Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. Versus (1) Sr. Supdt. Of Post Office, Opposite Party No.1 Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi. (2) Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd., Opposite Party No.2 Regional Office-702/703, Vikram Towers, New Delhi-110008. (3) Sharepro Services Opposite Party No.3 (Formerly Tata Consultancy Services) 912, Reheja Center, Nariman Point, Bombay-400 020. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complainant is an advocate by profession. Through this complaint he has sought compensation of Rs. 7,25,000/- on account of failure of the OP to deliver the registered parcel containing 700 Colgate Palmolive shares as the parcel is alleged to have been stolen in the custody of the OP department.
2. The nature of service availed by the complainant was only for delivery of registered parcel against consideration. There was no other privity of contract between the parties with the OP rendering it liable to pay cost of the contents or shares or any other contents contained in the registered parcel.
3. In such type of cases the service provider is neither aware as to what material is contained in the parcel nor is there any privity of contract between the parties nor that since provider shall be liable to pay cost of the contents of the material contained in the registered parcel. On this premise the service provider cannot be asked to compensate the consumer in terms of actual loss or injury suffered by him due to the theft or loss of the parcel. Amount of compensation should always be commensurate with the consideration amount and nature of service provided by the service provider.
4. However, due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not delivering the registered parcel at its destination we allow the complaint by awarding a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
5. Complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
6. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
7. Announced on the 18th April, 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj