State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Speed Post, Department Of Post vs R.K.Roy on 26 April, 2010
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No. 1108 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.261 OF 2009 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-III HYDERABAD Between The Business Manager, Speed Post, Department of Post GPO, Abids, Hyderabad Appellant/opposite party A N D R.K.Roy Director-Favorfinessee, 64 Ganesh Nagar, West Marredpally Secunderabad-500 026 Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellant Sri V.Vinod Kumar Counsel for the Respondent Sri R.K.Roy (PIP) QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HONBLE MEMBER
& SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) *** The opposite party is the appellant. The appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum contending that the postal article in dispute has reached the US and was delivered to the addressee and received by Mary Hardy.
The envelope was received by Mary Hardy at the given addressed as mentioned in the envelope. The complainant is a business man and the consumer dispute relates to the business based on profit. Article 21 Section K of the constitution of EMS-Universal Postal Union is not applicable to the facts of the case as there was no theft or loss recorded on delivered item. As per rule 66B of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, the liability of the postal department in case of delay in delivery of speed post article beyond the norms determined by the department of posts from time to time, the compensation is equal to composite speed post charges paid in the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of contents or damage to the contents, the compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/- whichever is less. In case of loss of an international speed post article, the amount of compensation is to be paid at 30 SDR as per the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Memo No.19-1/95-BA dated 11.7 .1996.
The other grounds of appeal are that the District Forum has granted the relief of 150 SDR instead of 30 SDR as contended by the complainant.
As per 6 of Indian Postoffice Act, 1989, the opposite party is not liable for any loss or mis-delivery or delay in delivery of postal article unless it was done fraudulently. The District Forum has not considered the submission of the opposite party that the order in R.P.No.15 of 1997 between Head Post Master, Post Office, Railway Road, Kurukeshetra, Haryana and others Vs RC Puri. As per Clause 107C of post office guide Part II the delivery of foreign parcels in the country of destination is governed by the International Regulations. In many countries uninsured parcels are treated as unregistered parcels and no receipt is taken at the time of delivery of the parcel.
The facts of the case are that the complainant had sent an article through speed post, Dept. of Posts, Nehru Nagar Post Office under barcode EE 6233353661N and paid Rs.500/- towards the charges. The parcel was addressed to Indrani Jagmohan, 10, Rockway Heights, 7 Rockway Drive, Southampton SB02, Bermuda. The complainant after his retirement from service has been a free lance agent of principals at the USA and receives commission. The complainant as such is self employed. The parcel contained exquisite Indian Herbs and Extracts such as pure Kashmir saffron, pista, extracts of almond, walnut, elachi, cardamom, shilajit etc., used for medicinal use and culinary purpose as well. The declared value for the customs was 50USD. The complainant informed the speed post office on 15.5.2008 that the parcel was not delivered at the destination. The complainant addressed a letter dated 21.6.2008 to the Nehru Nagar Post office.
The complainant has sent reminder and paid personal visit to the office of the opposite party. The article was not traced . The complainant prayed for a sum of Rs.2600/- towards the value of the article and Rs.4,208/- towards compensation.
The opposite party has filed counter contending that the speed post article was consigned to SPC Mumbai on 3.5.2008 and dispatched on 4.5.2008 from Mumbai. The speed post centre Mumbai informed the opposite party that the article was dispatched to USA and the delivery status was not intimated by the US postal authority. Hence, it was presumed that the article was lost in postal transit. On 1.12.2008 the complainant was requested to forward a copy of original receipt for processing the payment of compensation of 30 SDRs equivalent to Indian Currency of Rs.1,975/-. The complainant has not forwarded the document and instead filed the complaint before the District Forum. The complainant is entitled to get compensation for the loss of an international speed post article to the tune of Rs.1,975/-. The opposite party is ready to pay an amount of Rs.1,975/- on submission of the copy of the receipt by the complainant.
The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A10.
The opposite party has filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B13.
The point for consideration is whether the opposite party is liable to pay the amount of 30 SDRs or 150 SDRs to the complainant?
The complainant sending the parcel through speed post from Nehru Nagar Post Office to Bermuda is not disputed. The complainant claimed that the parcel was not delivered at the given address to Indrani Jagmohan whereas it is the contention of the opposite party that the parcel was received by Mary Hardy at the given address as mentioned in the article in question. The letter dated 5.6.2009 addressed to the opposite party by the Manager, Speed Post Centre, New Delhi indicates that the article was received in Bermuda on 20.10.2010, the third paragraph of the letter reads as under:
As per IPS track report the article received in Bermuda on 20.10.2008 and attempt failed delivery of article in Bermuda on 21.10.2008, 24.10.2008 and 28.10.2008. The SP Article was final delivered on 3.11.2008 and received by Mary Harding. ( photocopy of IPS track report attached).
There is no delay on the part of SPC Delhi.
This is a case of delay delivery.
It is therefore requested to please settle the case as per the departmental rules It appears, acting upon the advice of the Manager Speed Post Centre New Delhi the opposite party has come forward with an offer of 30 SDR. The opposite party has claimed privilege u/s 6 of Indian Post Office Act under Rule 66B of IPO Rules. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act provides privilege to the postal department for loss misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post. Section 6 of the IPO Act read as under:
6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason 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.
The other provision of law the opposite party has sought for shelter is Rule 66B of IPO Rules. Rule 66B of the IPO Rules is extracted as under:
66-B. INLAND SPEED POST SERVICE Inland Postal articles may be booked after obtaining receipts therefore, at the places specified in column (1) of the Schedule below and at the post offices specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Schedule for delivery under the Inland Speed Post Service subject to the following conditions namely:
(1) Inland Speed Post Service shall be available in respect of all classes of mails which can be sent by registered service;
(2) an inland speed post fee of Rs.10/- per article for distance upto 500 km. And of Rs.20 per article, weighing upto 5 kg. with an additional fee of Rs.5 for every additional kg. or part thereof, for distance beyond 500 kms.
in addition to the postage and registration fee and air surcharge, wherever applicable shall be prepaid by the sender in the same manner as is prescribed in the case of registered and parcel mail articles;
(3) articles for booking under this service shall prominently bear on the front the superscription INLAND SPEED POST and shall also bear the name and address of the sender in addition to that of the addresses, including the PIN Codes, of the Post Offices of delivery serving the addressee and the sender and their telephone numbers, if any;
(4) complaints regarding any article booked under this service( including a demand for refund of fees in cases of non-delivery of articles within the stipulated time) may be preferred within three months from the date of booking of the article and shall inter alia contain the number of the article, the date of booking and the name of the office of booking;
(5) there will be no delivery of these articles on Sundays and other holidays in the post offices concerned.
Explanation:
For the purpose of this rule Inland Speed Post Service means the service which seeks to deliver postal articles within stipulated time, specified in respect of each city or town, as the case may be from time to time,by a special messenger or conveyance.
The complainant has submitted that either Sec.6 of the IPO Act, or Rule 66B of the IPO Rules 1933 are not applicable to the facts of the case. According to him the parcel was sent to Bermuda, a foreign country.
He relied upon Constitution of the Universal Postal Union. An extract from the website marked as Exs.A1 to A4 indicates that the convention is binding on all member countries as the common rules applicable to the International post and the provisions concerning the letter post and parcel post service are mentioned in the convention and its regulation. It is mentioned in Ex.A2 that EMS is an international postal express service for both documents and merchandise, the service is offered in more than 191 countries world wide as integral element of postal offer effectively complementing the traditional range of letter-post and parcel-post service.
The third paragraph of Ex.A2 runs as under:
The international service is regulated by the BMS cooperative established by UPUs postal operations counsel in 1998 to develop and strength SMS service. The membership of EMS cooperative is on a voluntary basis and more than 140 EMS operator are currently members covering 90% of Global EMS profits. The EMS cooperatives provides a range of service to its members and undertakes independent measurement of key performance indicators for all EMS operators through its Audit and Measurement Programme.
The membership of India in EMS cooperative is not denied. Having been a signatory to the convention, the regulations made thereunder have been made applicable to all the member countries as envisaged by the Universal Postal Union Act. Once the applicability of the provisions of the Universal Postal Union Act is accepted, it becomes essential to consider whether the provisions Universal Postal Union or repugnant to the provisions of the IPO Act and IPO Rules and in case of any repugnancy between the provisions of both the Acts which Act would prevail. The version of the opposite party that it is prepared to pay 30SDR to the complainant subject to the production of original receipt makes it clear that the provisions Universal Postal Union Act have been given preference over those of Indian Post Office Act and IPO Rules. The circular dated 11.12.1987 issued by the Dy. Director General International Relation goes to show that in case of the delay in delivery of an article booked in India on account of fault in service in India or the country of destination, refund of the difference between the actual charges realized and the amount chargeable on an Airmail registered letter of equally is payable to the sender.
The complainant contended that the Circular is against the convention of Universal Postal Union. According to him for a registered airmail letter 30SDR have been fixed as the compensation for the loss, 130 SDR for a registered airmail parcel irrespective of its weight. It is his contention that he has paid four times the freight charges for EMS, Speed Post Article than that of a registered airmail article and in such circumstances compensation @ 30SDR for the loss of Registered Air Mail Article cannot be fixed on par with the loss of an EMS speed post article. He disputes the relevance of the circular stating that it does not contain the endorsement of Universal Postal Union Convention.
We do not agree with the contention of the complainant that the Circular Ex.B13 sans endorsement of the Universal Postal Union Convention, is not worthy of any consideration at the time of weighing the evidence. Ex.B13 is issued by Dy.Director General, International Relations to all the Heads of Circles and it has been circulated by the Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, New Delhi. The postal department would not stoop to fabricate Ex.B13 to pay the amount in terms thereof.
In view of our discussion on the aspect of the liability of the opposite party in terms of circular issued by the Dy. Director, International Relations restricting the liability of the opposite party insofar as the articles like the article in question is concerned, we hold` that the complainant is entitled to 30SDR. Accordingly, the impugned order requires modification whereby the amount awarded has to be scaled down from 150SDR to 30SDR i.e., an Indian Currency of Rs.1950/-.
In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 9.9.2009 passed by the District Forum is modified by restricting the liability of the opposite party. The opposite party directed to pay Rs.1,950/- and cost quantified at Rs.1,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.26.04.2010 KMK*