STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.431 of 2016 Date of institution : 06.06.2016 Date of decision : 10.05.2017 Superintendent, Post Office, Near Sher Shah Wali, Ferozepur Cantt. .Appellant-Opposite Party Versus Lt. Col. Jagdev Singh, 411, MC/MF Det, Ferozepur Cantt, aged 53 years son of Shri Shyam Singh, resident of VPO-Kakrala, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. ..Respondent-Complainant First Appeal against the order dated 12.4.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur. Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member Present:- For the appellant :Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate. For the respondent :Shri Vinod Khunger, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: The instant First Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 12.4.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short, District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by Lt. Col. Jagdev Singh, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses amounting to Rs.5,000/-, besides the payment of Rs.2,185/- which is the cost of the railway ticket. First Appeal No.431 of 2016
2. It would be apposite to mention at the outset that hereinafter the parties will be referred as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant despatched a railway ticket to his daughter Mandeep Kaur at Gurgaon for her travel on 9.8.2015 from New Delhi to Nasik through speed post, vide No.EP331001579IN dated 31.7.2015. The cost of the ticket was Rs.2,185/-. The said speed post containing the railway ticket was neither delivered to the daughter of the complainant till 9.8.2015 nor the same was returned back to the complainant. However, the train was cancelled by the Railways Department on the said date. As per Rules of the Railways Department regarding cancelled train, if a person wants to claim refund of the amount of the ticket after cancellation of the train, he has to get his ticket cancelled upto 72 hours after the departure of the train at any computerized reservation counter. So, the said ticket was required to be cancelled till 13.8.2015 for claiming the refund of the ticket. But the complainant was unable to do so. The complainant lodged a complaint online with the Postal Department regarding the non-delivery of the speed post article bearing No.100064-38022 dated 18.8.2015. After lodging the complaint, the speed post envelope containing the railway ticket was delivered back to the complainant on 21.08.2015 after elapse of more than 20 days from the date of despatch without assigning any reason. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to refund the price of ticket amounting to Rs.2,185/- along with First Appeal No.431 of 2016 interest @ 12% per annum from 31.07.2015 till realization, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment, Rs.30,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed its reply to the complaint raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is against law and facts. Speed post is only meant for sending letters and not valuable items and that the complaint is also not maintainable as the Union of India has not been made a party. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complaint regarding the sending of speed post article is admitted and that the Postal Department delivers millions of letters and due to sheer volume of work, some articles can get misplaced. Section 6 of the Post Office Act exempts the employees of the Department from any loss, mis-delivery, delay and damage and it reads as under:- The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far such liability may in expressed terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided and no officer of the post shall incur any liability by reason of such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. Rule 66-B of the Indian Post Office Rules has been reproduced in the reply and the same reads as under:- First Appeal No.431 of 2016 In case of any delay of domestic speed post article beyond the norms determined by the Department of Post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charge paid. In the event of the loss of domestic speed post articles of loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/-, whichever is less. It has further been pleaded that Section 6 of the Post Office Act has been interpreted by various courts and it has been held that no compensation can be awarded except provided under the Rules. The said view has been held in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 431 (Union Of India v. Mohd. Nazim.) and many other judgments. Denying all other allegations a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records of the case.
7. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the District Forum has not considered the provision of Section 6 of the Post Office Act and when there is no such allegation of any wilful neglect and fault of any of the official of the Post Office, then in that eventuality no compensation can be First Appeal No.431 of 2016 awarded to the complainant which is against the well settled proposition of law. Moreover, there is a specific provision with regard to the compensation in case of domestic speed post article contained in Rule 66-B and for that the complainant was to approach the Department within a period of 30 days from the date of despatch of the postal article which he did not prefer and directly file the complaint before the District Forum. He further argued that the amount of compensation and costs awarded by the District Forum are on the higher side. He placed reliance on various judgments mentioned in para no.10 of the grounds of appeal and prayed that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum be set aside.
8. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that after carefully scrutinizing the records of the case and the evidence led by both the sides, the District Forum passed well reasoned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, the same is liable to be upheld.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised before us.
10. Admittedly the complainant despatched a railway ticket to his daughter Mandeep Kaur at Gurgaon for her travel on 9.8.2015 from New Delhi to Nasik by LLT Express, vide speed post No.EP331001579IN dated 31.07.2015 the cost of which was Rs.2,185/-. The railway ticket and postal receipt are produced on record as Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. A perusal of Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 reveals that regarding the non-delivery of the speed post article, the First Appeal No.431 of 2016 complainant lodged online complaint with the Postal Department bearing complaint No.100064-38022 dated 18.8.2015 and after lodging the complaint, the speed post envelope containing the railway ticket was delivered back to the complainant on 21.8.2015 after a lapse of more than 20 days from the date of despatch, which is Ex.C-4 with no endorsement as to why the same was not delivered to the addressee at Gurgaon and thereafter on 22.8.2015, the complainant received a letter from the opposite party Ex.C-5 and envelope Ex.C-6 stating that the speed post of the complainant has been delivered back to the complainant on 21.8.2015 without assigning any reasons for the same. The train was cancelled by the Railways Department on the said date and as per Rules of the Railways Department regarding cancelled train Ex.C-7, if a person wants to claim refund of the amount of the ticket after cancellation of the train, he has to get his ticket cancelled upto 72 hours after the departure of the train at any computerized reservation counter. So, the said ticket was required to be cancelled till 13.8.2015 for claiming the refund of the ticket in question i.e. within 4 days from the scheduled departure of train on 9.8.2015 by presenting the original ticket with the computerized reservation counter of the Indian Railways. However, the complainant was unable to do so because the ticket was neither delivered back to the complainant nor to his daughter at Gurgaon till 13.8.2015 by the Postal Department. So the complainant could not avail the refund of the ticket amounting to Rs.2,185/- because of the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not delivering the speed post First Appeal No.431 of 2016 containing the railway ticket till 13.8.2015 which was desptached on 31.7.2015 and delivered back the same to the complainant on 21.8.2015 without assigning any reason.
11. So far as the plea of the opposite party regarding Section 6 of the Post Office Act and award of compensation is concerned, it has rightly been held by the District Forum after relying upon the judgments of the Honble National Commission and this Commission mentioned in para no.7 of its order that provision of Section 6 of the Post Office Act cannot be applied to modernized form of transactions such as speed post and e-mail etc. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the compensation awarded to the complainant is on the higher side and Rs.10,000/- shall be just and proper compensation.
12. In view of the discussion held above, we partly allow this appeal and modify the impugned order passed by the District Forum to the extent that the amount of compensation shall be Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-. Rest of the impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.
13. The appellant had deposited a sum of 13,600/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.431 of 2016
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER May 10, 2017 Bansal
Comments