Back
1994 1 CPR 327
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GUJARAT: AHMEDABAD
P.M. Chauhan, President & Dr. RK Shah, Member
The Post Master General Ahmedabad & Ors. - Appellant
versus
Vamech Nippon Pillar Seals Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Appeal No. 41 or 1993
Decided on 1.11.1993
IMPORTANT POINTIf gross negligence is caused by which the address is besmeared/obliterated such act is not protected under the provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal - Complaint - Respondent handed over three samples to be delivered at Japan, Singapore and Rishikesh at Post Office - Two parcels returned in torn condition after" about two months - Complainant-Respondent asserted claim for one parcel sent to Japan Complainant-Respondent could not get order worth about five lakhs and samples also deteriorated - Appellants-Opponents contended that they are not liable for damages as they were protected under Section 6 of the Post Offices Act and District Forum had no jurisdiction - Parcels not handled negligently at any stage of transit - Complainant-respondent had not written address properly - District Forum holding that act of negligence not protected by Section 6 of Post Offices Act - Only loss, m is delivery or delay or direct damages protected under Section 6 of Post Offices Act - Gross negligence caused by which address obliterated not protected - Appellant liable for damages - Appeal partially allowed - Order of District Forum modified to the extent that instead of Rs. ll,640/- appellant-Opponents to pay Rs. 1000/- with interest plus Rs. 250/- as cost.
Held: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the respondent is consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It also held that the parcel was negligently handled and, therefore, not served. In view of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the very fact that the parcels were accepted and the receipt was given by itself establishes that the addresses were properly written on the parcels and particularly on the parcel to be sent to Japan for which the grievance is made. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum therefore held that only because of the negligent handling of the parcel the address besmeared and could not be sent by the post office at Bombay to the addressee at Japan and was returned. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has also expressed the view that such act of negligence is not protected by the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Offices Act. (Para 4)
The provisions of Section 6 do not provide the blanket or total indemnity for any act of the Postal authorities or the Central Government. If that would have been the intention of the Parliament, then only 4 acts as specified in the Section would not have been protected and complete indemnity of anything done to the parcel article delivered to the postal authority would have been protected under that section. If the act which results into return of the article to the addresser is not covered by any of the 4 acts specified in Section 6, then the Government or the postal authorities are liable for the damages. This is the case of gross negligence, the protection of which is not contemplated by the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Office Act and, therefore, the appellants are liable for the damages except the claim for the damages caused to the parcel. (Para 5)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has recorded that the respondent contended that it sustained damage of Rs. 4600/- but the evidence were not produced and, therefore, on the basis of reasonable guess work, the amount of Rs. 1000/- should not be awarded for the deterioration in the sample of goods and torn condition of the parcel. Under Section 6 of the Act discussed above any damages to the parcel during the transmission is protected and, therefore, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum should not have awarded Rs. 1000/- for the damage to the parcel. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has awarded Rs. 4640/- for sending the sample through courier service as the receipts were produced on the record to establish that fact. Sending 'the parcel by courier service was totally an independent act and, therefore, the appellant should not have been held liable for that amount of Rs. 5000/- is awarded for the loss profit against the claim of Rs. 75,000/-. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum recorded that the respondent did not lead any evidence for the exact loss sustained. However, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum thought it proper to award the total amount of the loss on the reasonable guess work because the respondent would have certainly sustained loss for loosing the order. The respondent had only sent the sample which the party was still to select and place the order. The party has to select particular samples from various samples advertised and, therefore, it cannot be said in certainty that the respondent would have earned the profit. It is quite possible that the respondent might not have been favoured with the order by the addressee. For claiming the damages for such commercial transactions, it is necessary that loss/damage must be established and no damages can be awarded on guess work. The respondent is, therefore, not entitled to the amount of Rs. 5000/- awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for the loss of profit. (Para 8)
The appeal is partially allowed and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Val sad is modified to the extent that instead of direction to pay Rs. 11,640/-, we direct the appellants - opponents to pay Rs. 1000/- with interest and cost of Rs. 250/- to the respondent complainant awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
P.M. Chauhan, President - This appeal is directed against the order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad at
Navsari holding that the appellants were negligent in handling the parcels and because of their negligence, the address on the post parcel were besmeared/obliterated and, therefore, could not be sent by the post office at Bombay to the addressee at Japan and, therefore, the respondent-complainant suffered loss. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum condoned the contention that the appellants were protected under the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Offices Act and, therefore, not liable for any damages or compensation.
2. The respondent handed over three samples to be delivered at Japan, Singapore and Rishikesh at the G.I.D.C. post office at Vapi. the samples of the product to be sent to Japan valued at Rs. 1000/-, that of to be sent to Singapore valued at Rs. 380/- and the sample for Rishikesh valued at Rs. 25/-. Out of the three parcels booked on 13.7.1992, two parcels were returned after about two months in torn condition and the respondent on enquiry came to know that the postal authorities had sent the parcel to the main post office at Vapi from where the same were sent to Bombay. At Vapi the parcels were not properly handled and attended and because of the monsoon the address written in ink on parcel had besmeared. The post office at Bombay therefore could not read the addresses as they were illegible and the parcels were then returned to the complainant. The complainant also stated that likewise about 500 parcels were returned from different parts of the country to the post office at G.I.D.C., Vapi. The Respondent, even though had grievance about two parcels, asserted the claim for one parcel sent to Japan. According to the respondent, even though short time was left for presentation of the samples, it was sent through courier but the time limit fixed for sending the parcel to Japan had expired and reached late and, therefore, respondent could not be successful to get the order for supply of the articles as the order was placed with other producers. If at all the parcel would have been delivered to the addressee, the complainant could have received the order worth about Rs. 5 lakhs and earned profit of atleast Rs. 75,000/-. The respondent had also spent Rs. 2000/- for enquiry about the parcel as the delay was caused in delivering to the addressee. The samples were deteriorated and, therefore, the complainant suffered loss of Rs. 3200/- and as parcels were sent in torn condition loss caused was Rs. 1400/-. The respondent accordingly claimed Rs. 86,245/- for the deficiency in service of the appellants.
3. The appellants-opponents by written statement asserted that they were not liable to pay the damages and were protected under the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Offices Act. They also contended that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint and the respondent was not consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The booking of the parcel was, however admitted but it was asserted that they were taken to Bombay and due care was taken and they were not negligent in handling at any stage of the transit. According to the appellants, the respondent had not written the address on the parcel properly and were illegible and, therefore, it was difficult to know where the parcels were to be sent and the parcels could not be served to the addressee only because of the negligence of the respondent and they were returned by the post office at Bombay. The alleged loss by the respondent is also denied.
4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the respondent is consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It also held that the parcel was negligently handled and, therefore, not served. In view of the District COi1sumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the very fact that the parce
