Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P.
Complaint Case No.126/2009
Date of Institution 5-5-2009
Date of Decision 31-10-2009
Smt. Vidya Rai wife of Sh. N. K. Rai resident of House No.30/7 Gandhi Chowk, Mandi Town, District Mandi, H.P..
…Complainant
Vs
1. Post Master Head Post Office Mandi , H.P.
2. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Post and Telegraph , New Delhi .
…..Opposite parties
For the complainant Sh. S.P. Sharma , ,Advocate
For the opposite party Sh. Vinod Chaudhary, DA
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ORDER.
This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties. The case of the complainant is that she had booked two registered parcels containing therein clothes and woolen shawls weighing 13286 grams and 3690 grams respectively on 8-5-2007 as per receipt No. FGN-AIR-RPC 668 & FGN-AIR-RPC 669 dated 8-5-2007 which were to be sent as gifts to her son – in law Sh.Sushil Kaushal at Newzealand through the opposite party No.1 being the office of the opposite party No.2. . The complainant averred that when the said parcels were not received by her son-in – law after the lapse of one month, she requested the Post Master vide representation Annexure O-3 to inquire the matter and to inform her about the position in the matter and vide letter Annexure C-4 she was assured by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office Mandi to inquire into the matter . Vide letter Annexure C-5, the complainant was advised to lodge the complaint in prescribed form giving necessary detail of the case and she had complied with said advice . Thereafter vide letter dated 17-8-2007 Annexure C-6 the complainant was intimated by the opposite parties that the parcels have been forwarded to New Zealand on 12-5-2007. Thereafter vide letter Annexure C-7 dated 6-11-2007, the complainant was intimated that parcel sent vide No.C-669 had been delivered to the addressee on 16-5-2007. Upon this the husband of the complainant informed the opposite parties that the parcel sent vide No.668 has been delivered and parcel sent vide No.669 had not been delivered . The complainant alleged that non- delivering of the parcel sent vide No. 669 is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties With these averments , the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties to pay the cost of woolen shawls amounting to Rs.3200/- and also to refund Rs.1305/- the charges of parcel taken by them with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 7-6-2007 till payment . Apart from this , compensation in the sum of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs..2500/- has also been claimed .
2 The opposite parties resisted the complaint and raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,1898, that the complainant does not become consumer by paying speed post charges, that the Postal Department is not a common carrier and that the registered parcels in question were delivered to the addressee on 16-5-2007. On merits , the opposite parties have admitted the receipt of parcels booked vide No.668 and 669 on 8-5-2007. It has also been admitted that the complainant had lodged complaint about non- delivery of parcel sent vide No.669 on 8-5-2007. The opposite parties contended that the complaint was entered in the website and it was found that the registered parcel has been delivered to the addressee on 16-5-2007 as per annexure R-1 . The opposite parties contended that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 13-8-2007 that the parcel sent vide No.C-669 has been forwarded to New Zealand at Sr. No.6/6 on 12-5-2007 as per Annexure C-3 . It has been averred that both the parcels in question were delivered to addressee on 16-5-2007 .The opposite parties had denied the charge of deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3 The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverted the allegations made in the reply
4 We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire record. The perusal of the record shows that the complainant had sent two parcels vide transaction No.668 and 669 dated 8-5-2007. It is not in dispute that the parcel sent vide transaction No.668 was duly received by the addressee. However, the dispute is with respect to the parcel sent vide transaction No.669. According to the complainant aforesaid parcel was containing shawls worth Rs.3200/- and the same has not been received by the addressee who is her son –in –law and the non delivery of the aforesaid parcel amounts to deficiency in service . Conversely the case of the opposite parties is that the aforesaid parcel sent vide No.669 had been delivered to the addressee on 16-5-2007. Therefore, the onus was upon the opposite parties to prove that the parcel No.669 in question was delivered to the addressee. In this respect, the opposite parties had placed on record photocopy of letter dated 27-10-2007 from Director ,Foreign Post , New Delhi Annexure R-1 wherein it has been mentioned that parcel under reference had been delivered to the addressee on 16-5-2007 as intimated by the Postal Administration of New Zealand. The opposite parties had also placed on record document from Internet i.e. Investigation reply wherein it had been mentioned that Item No.CP201218645IN had been delivered . Apart from these documents , there is no other evidence on record produced by the opposite parties to establish that the parcel in question has actually been delivered to the addressee. In our opinion , the aforesaid documents are not sufficient so as to establish that the parcel under reference has been delivered to the addressee because no credence can be attached to the letter dated 27-10-2007 as it is only a photocopy and not even attested to be true copy by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, though some of the photocopies of the documents have been attested by him. In order to establish that the parcel under reference has been delivered to the addressee, , the opposite parties could have filed affidavit of the Director , Foreign Post , New Delhi who is stated to have sent the letter dated 27-10-2007 but the same has not seen the light of the day . Even in the document from the Internet i.e. Investigation reply created on 12-2-2008, it has not been specifically mentioned that item under reference has been delivered to the addressee. It has only been mentioned that
“ Item Delivered” but there is no mention therein that the item has been delivered to the addressee Sushil Kaushal . There is a column “Recipient name” in the aforesaid document from Internet i.e. investigation reply created on 12-2-2008 but the same has been left blank . In column “Delivery time” time of delivery has also not been mentioned. There is no explanation from the opposite parties as to why the name of the recipient has not been mentioned in the aforesaid document from Internet. Had the parcel been delivered to the addressee ,the opposite parties definitely would have obtained the receipt from the addressee and therefore, the opposite parties could have filed the receipt of the addressee acknowledging therein the receipt of the parcel under reference but the same has not seen the light of the day. As such an adverse inference has to be drawn against the opposite parties for withholding the material evidence from this Forum . Rather the complainant has adduced in evidence Fax copy of message Annexure C-11 received by her from the addressee Sh.Susheel Kaushal wherein it has been written that the second parcel containing shawls sent by his mother- in -law had not been received by him till date i.e. 9th August 2009. In order to establish that the parcel under reference has been delivered to the addressee, some concrete material should have been placed on record by the opposite parties , however, no such material has been placed on record by them. Therefore , we have no hesitation to conclude that the opposite parties have failed to prove and establish that parcel sent by the complainant vide transaction No. 669 had been delivered to the addressee Sh. Sushil Kaushal. The non – delivery of the parcel to the addressee definitely amounts
to gross negligence and willful default on the part of the opposite parties and they cannot take shelter under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,1898. To take this view we are fortified by the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Superintendent of Post and Telegraph vs M.L. Gupta and Another 2009(1) CPC – 419 Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the cost of the shawls contained in the parcel which is Rs.3200/- and she is also entitled to refund of parcel fee i.e. Rs.1305/-.Apart from this, the complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.500/-on account of harassment caused to her and Rs.500/- as cost of litigation.
5 In the light of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the cost of the shawls contained in the parcel i.e. Rs.3200/- and also to refund Rs.1305/- the parcel fee with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Apart from this the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.500 /- on account of harassment suffered by her due to deficiency in service and also to pay a sum of Rs. 500 /- as costs of litigation.
6 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.
7 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced
31-10-2009 (Sushil Kukreja ) President
*DKM* ( Lal Singh) ( Alkananda) Members