State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Adkshak Dak Pradhan vs Panchachuli Oman Vibhars on 23 March, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 247 / 2013
Superintendent of Posts
Head Post Office
Almora
...... Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Panchachuli Women Weavers
Patal Devi Industrial Area
Almora through its CEO Sh. Virendra Singh Bisht
...... Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), Dehradun, Learned Counsel for the
Appellant
None for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 23/03/2018
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 07.08.2013 passed by the District Forum, Almora in consumer complaint No. 09 of 2012.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 26.12.2011, the complainant had sent an express parcel bearing (E.P.P.) No. EV140348732IN to Madhumita Sinha C/o Anup Sinha, NF 3/6, Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata - 700104 from Head Post Office, Almora vide booking No. EPP-R Almora H.O. (263601). The said parcel contained goods worth Rs. 82,800/-. When the consignment did not reach the addressee / destination place, the complainant made inquiry from the postal department through his 2 employee Sh. Govind Singh Mehta on 02.01.2012, whereupon it was told that on getting the required information about the consignment, the same would be communicated to the complainant. On 03.01.2012, Sh. Harendra Prasad, an employee of the complainant, visited the post office and inquired about the consignment. The Postmaster told Sh. Harendra Prasad to contact the customer care centre / service centre and that they are taking action in the matter and information about the consignment would be given within 2-3 days'. In the meanwhile, the purchaser of the goods / addressee pressurized the complainant regarding non-receipt of the goods. On 07.01.2012, the complainant submitted an application to the Superintendent, Head Post Office, Almora and made a request for making investigation regarding non-delivery of the parcel. On 12.01.2012, Sh. Mahendra Singh Mehra and Sh. Dhan Singh, the employees of the complainant, visited the post office, where they were informed to contact Sh. Alok Verma, who asked to come after a day. On 13.01.2012, the said employees of the complainant again met Sh. Alok Verma, who told that the complainant has been computerized and the reply would be given soon, but no information was given even after a week. Then Sh. Virendra Singh Bisht, CEO of the complainant and Sh. Deep Lal Shah, visited the Head Post Office, Almora, where they were told that they are making inquiry of telephone, but no one is picking up the call at Moradabad. The consignment / parcel was booked on 26.12.2011 and inspite of written complaint dated 07.01.2012 and 10.02.2012, the same did not reach the destination place and no action was taken in the matter. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the postal department, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Almora.
3. The appellant - postal department filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on 09.01.2012, the complaint 3 made by the complainant regarding the E.P.P. in question was lodged on internet by the Postmaster, Almora; that on account of not getting the desired information, the Postmaster, Almora has issued the search bill on 20.01.2012 to S.R.O., Kathgodam with regard to the E.P.P. in question for stage to stage inquiry of the parcel; that on the basis of the search bill, the investigation has been carried out upto HRO, RMS, Patna; that in the letter dated 05.06.2012 issued by Assistant Head Record Officer, RMS 'WB' Division, Howrah, it was reported that no such mail list was received by MA Howrah; that as per clause No. 3.4 of the manual dated issued by Business Development & Marketing Directorate, Department of Posts, in case of loss of the parcel or damage to the parcel, the compensation payable will be restricted to Rs. 500/- or the actual value of the parcel lost / damaged, whichever is less; that there has not been any fraudulent or willful act on the part of the postal department; that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 500/- only and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, after perusal of the record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 07.08.2013 and directed the appellant - postal department to pay sum of Rs. 82,800/- to the respondent - complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from 04.04.2012, i.e., the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the postal department has filed the present appeal.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent - complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant - postal department and gone through the record.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the parcel / consignment booked by the complainant with the postal department 4 was not delivered to the addressee, nor the same was not returned to the complainant. As per the own case of the postal department, the said parcel / consignment went missing, as has duly been mentioned in ground No. 11 of the memo of appeal, wherein it has been stated that before being delivered at the destination place, the consignment went missing between Patna and Howrah.
7. The postal department has taken shelter of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, which provides that the Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. In the instant case, there has certainly been default on the part of the officials of the postal department in not delivering the article booked by the complainant at the destination place. It is not the case where there has been delay in delivery of the article. As is stated above, the article has been lost somewhere due to negligence and default on the part of the postal department and hence, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the postal department can not get exemption from liability for loss of the article booked by the complainant.
8. So far as another plea taken by the postal department that the maximum compensation payable by the postal department is restricted to Rs. 500/-, as has been mentioned in clause No. 3.4 of the manual dated issued by Business Development & Marketing Directorate, Department of Posts, reliance whereupon has been made on behalf of the postal department, is concerned, we are of the view that said 5 clause does not come to the rescue of the postal department in the present case. The reason being that, as is stated above, there has been willful default and negligence on the part of the postal department in not delivering the consignment at the destination place and no satisfactory answer was given to the complainant regarding the fate of the booked article inspite of several visits to the concerned post office and the complainant was made to run from pillar to post on account of negligent act of the postal department.
9. So far as quantum is concerned, in para 1 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that the value of the goods consigned through the postal department was Rs. 82,800/-. The weight the parcel was 15640 gms. The postal department has not stated that the parcel did not contain goods worth Rs. 82,800/-, but has stated that no information was given by the complainant regarding the value of the goods at the time of booking the parcel. The addressee to whom the parcel was sent, has specifically stated in her e-mail dated 19.03.2012 (Paper No. 5ka/2 of the original record) that the consignment contained 76 pieces, details whereof have also been given. Thus, the value of the goods kept in the parcel booked through the postal department, can also not be doubted.
10. The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being bereft of merit, warrants dismissal.
11. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K