Liability for delay in parcel transmission under the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898

Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President—The complainant of Mohali sent a registered parcel containing samples of front door handles, center door knobs, plate, handle etc. to M/s. Al Qamra International Trade at Doha Qatar vide Receipt No. 1844 dated 27.7.95 at Post Office Phase I, Mohali. It has been alleged that it did not reach the destination and the complainant was deprived of a huge profit on account of this deficiency which has resulted in alleged loss of Rs. 15 lacs.

2. In a reply filed on behalf of the respondents it has been averred that the parcel was consigned to Controller, Foreign Mails, Bombay by SPM, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali on 27.7.95 and thereafter through the first available steamer it was dispatched and reached the addressee on 27.11.95. It has further been averred that the answering respondents were not aware of the contents of parcel because it was in a sealed cover. The details regarding delivery were received by the respondents from the Controller, Foreign Mails, Bombay vide their letter No. EXP/ C/2/65/96 dated 6.2.97, Annexure R 2. Besides this it has been averred that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, the respondents were not liable for delay during the course of transmission. The learned Counsel for the complainant referred to a letter dated 20th Aug., 95 Annexure P 1 addressed to the Postal Authorities of Post Office, Phase I, Mohali wherein it has been averred that the parcel was booked through 'air mail'. However, there is no such specific plea in the complaint. Besides this the relevant part of the statement of Shri N.C. Marwah, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sector 30, Chandigarh is reproduced as under:

"The parcel in question was not an air mail parcel and it was only transported through sea. The sum of Rs. 793/ in this case as mentioned in the receipt P1 were for transportation by sea and not by air. The parcel was booked on 27th July, 1995 and it was delivered to the addressee on 27th November, 1995."

A perusal of this important part of the statement shows that the parcel was not dispatched through airmail and it was to be transported through sea. After considering this unrebutted piece of evidence it cannot be held that the parcel was to be transported by air.

3. Thus after considering the fact that the complainant could not establish the contention that the parcel was to be transported by air, the claim fails for want of alleged deficiency.

4. On behalf of the respondents it has been pointed out that originally a sum of Rs. 42 lacs was claimed by the complainant and it was a fabulous amount. However, in the statement recorded here at a very early stage on 19.12.1996 the claim was reduced to Rs. 15 lacs by the Counsel for the complainant, which was within pecuniary jurisdiction. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the conclusion is that complaint fails and is hereby dismissed?

5. Announced. The order be communicated to the parties free of charges.

Complaint dismissed.