State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Post Master General vs N.D. Dobriyal on 18 January, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 282 / 2015
1. Post Master General
Uttarakhand Circle, G.P.O. Building, Dehradun
2. Director, Postal Services
Uttarakhand Circle, G.P.O. Building, Dehradun
3. Senior Superintendent
Uttarakhand Circle, Dehradun
4. Senior Post Master
G.P.O. Dehradun
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. N.D. Dobariyal
R/o 40/3, Bhandari Bagh, Block-3, Dehradun
.......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C (Civil), Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Respondent in person
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 18/01/2017
ORDER
(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 81 of 2013. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties- Postal Department to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days, if the aforesaid amount is not paid within stipulated time, then the 2 complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant has sent two speed posts on various dates, i.e. on 16.03.2011 to Public Information Officer, Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Development, Uttarakhand and on 23.04.2011 to Sh. M.S. Bhisan, D.S.O., Dehradun. It is well-known fact that the department of all the ministries are at Secretariat, Subhash Road, Dehradun. G.P.O. Dehradun delivered all the posts related to any ministry at Uttarakhand Secretariat. But the opposite parties did not delivered the speed post dated 16.03.2011 to Secretariat and the same was returned back to the complainant without any remark on 25.03.2011. On the said speed post's envelope, postman has mentioned a remark "redirect to Uttarakhand Secretariat", but the said speed post was not delivered to Secretariat, even the postman has wrote clear direction on the envelope. On the other speed post dated 23.04.2011, which was sent to D.S.O., Dehradun was also not delivered to its destination, which shows that the said speed post has been lost in transaction. It was requested to take action against the non-delivering of the said speed post. Customer care of Speed Post Department demanded a photocopy of the said speed posts, which were given by the complainant to the opposite parties. No information about the speed post delivered to D.S.O., Dehradun has been received. An information was sent by a letter dated 19.06.2011 that the complainant's complaint is time barred. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.
3. The opposite parties-Postal Department has stated in their written statement that the speed post, which was addressed to Public Information 3 Officer, but no location was mentioned on this envelope. It was complainant's responsibility to mention the correct address on the said speed post. The complainant has not mentioned the correct address and the location of the recipient. The complainant has asked some queries under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 02.02.2012, which was received by Public Information Officer on 23.02.2012 and the complainant has received information which he asked. Appeal was filed which was decided by Senior Superintendent, Post Office, Dehradun. In the case of second speed post, the address was not correct. The said department was under Majra region, but after October, 2011, it was under Chandrabani, Premnagar region. They further stated that according to Rule-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, it is specially mentioned that in case of any loss, mis-delivery or delay in postal articles, there is no responsibility of the Post Office. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, has allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 09.12.2015 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants-opposite parties have filed the present appeal.
5. Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G (Civil), learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties and respondent in person appeared before this Commission. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the entire record of the District Forum and perused the material placed on record.
6. In the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the District Forum has not considered this fact that the speed post which was sent to Sh. M.S. Bhisan, D.S.O., Dehradun, was time barred, but the 4 District Forum has passed an order in the complainant's favour. In the said consumer complaint, the District Forum has not considered this fact that the information of the speed post is kept only up to six months and passed the impugned order against the appellants. The District Forum has not considered that the speed post was sent on 23.04.2011 and complaint was filed on 22.05.2012 before the Postal Department. According to the Postal Department, information regarding speed post is kept only up to six months. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not provide any help to the respondent.
7. By perusal of the documents, it is evident that in the case of speed post dated 16.03.2011, the complainant has not mentioned the complete and correct address of the recipient (paper No. 4Kha/1 on the District Forum's record). In the absence of correct address, it was not possible that Postal Department will deliver the speed post to the addressee, so that complainant cannot demand any relief on his own carelessness regarding the speed post dated 16.03.2011. In the case of second speed post dated 23.04.2011 sent to D.S.O., Dehradun, it is evident that it was not delivered to the destination and the same was lost in transit. The respondent made correspondence with the appellants many times and he was informed that his case is time barred, as they have no record of speed post beyond six months. It is true that it was the duty of the appellants to deliver the speed post to its proper addressee.
8. In the case of Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Upbhokta Surakshya Parishad; III (1996) CPJ 105 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that "In a number of cases we have noticed that the postal department has been taking shelter under the provision of Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act which was enacted as far back as 1898 when the then Government of the day acquired total immunity for any action of the postal department resulting in a loss to the consumer. In fact, 5 through this section, the then Government made the postal department totally immune from any accountability to the people whom it was serving for consideration, even if such service was subsidized in respect of certain categories letters and postal articles etc. This provision made in 1898 in the Indian Postal Act is totally antiquated and out of tune with the spirit of a democratic Government in a Parliamentary system where the actions of the Government functionaries are subject to scrutiny and all such functionaries are accountable for any lapse or misdeed on their part in the discharge of their duty. We, therefore, feel that it is time that a comprehensive review of the Indian Postal Act is undertake so as to incorporate suitable amendments and modification to bring it in tune with the functioning of a democratic and accountable Government."
9. In the case at hand too, the Postal Department has not extended any reason/explanation for loss of the speed post in transit and has also not filed any plausible and reliable evidence to prove that the reasons for loss of the speed post in transit were beyond their control.
10. In view of the above, we find that the complaint regarding speed post dated 23.04.2011, is liable to be accepted. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be modified.
11. We find that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is on the higher side. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the speed post dated 23.04.2011 sent by the respondent-complainant was lost in transit. The District Forum has awarded the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation expenses Rs. 5,000/-, which do not appear to be justified. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and 6 litigation expenses of Rs. 2,500/- to be awarded to the respondent, would be just and proper. In this way, appeal is liable to be partly allowed.
12. Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun is modified and the appellants- opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent-complainant. The direction passed by the District Forum to pay interest @ 8% per annum till the date of payment is set aside. Costs of the appeal made easy.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)