Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Superintendent of
Post Offices and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Sachin Kumar – Respondent
Revision Petition No.82 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 22/06/2020 in Appeal No. 229/2019 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)
Decided on 28.6.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Dr. Ashwani Bharadwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sachin Kumar in Person

IMPORTANT POINT
In a welfare state, it becomes duty of a government department like postal department to do wide publicity for regular periodic dissemination of information relating to important provisions of Act/Rules/Regulations etc. which affect life of lakhs of citizens on daily basis.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b) – Indian Post Office Act, 1898 – Section 6 – Speed Post – Loss of Mobile Phone in transit – District Forum allowed complaint with direction to OPs to pay cost of mobile phone to complainant along with 9% interest, Rs. Rs.5000/- for mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost – Exemption is granted to Department from liabilities for loss, misdelivery, delay or damages – Under rules compensation for loss of article/letter is double speed post charges and costly items if booked through speed post need to be insured – However, Department
has not done enough dissemination of information/publicity for benefit of
public at large about applicability of such legal provisions – In a welfare state, it becomes duty of a government department like postal department to do wide publicity for regular periodic dissemination of information relating to important provisions of Act/Rules/Regulations etc. which affect life of lakhs of citizens on daily basis – Impugned orders set aside and complaint dismissed – If any amount has already been paid to Respondent, same shall not be recovered. (Paras 7, 11, 12 and 13)
Result: Revision Petition allowed with directions.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 22.06.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.229 of 2019 in which order dated 29.04.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 86/2016 was challenged, inter alia praying to:—

(i) quash and set aside the order dated 22.06.2020 in FA/229/2019 passed by the State Commission and dismiss the complaint filed by the Respondent and

(ii) award cost in favour of the Petitioners and pass the order which may be deemed to be just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioners & against the Respondent.

2. The Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 123 days (215 days in the application for condonation of delay). IA/3244/2021 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petition. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

3. While the Revision Petitioners were Appellants and the Respondent was Respondent in the said FA229/2019 before the State Commission, the Petitioners were Opposite Parties (OPs) and Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission in the CC 86/2016.

4. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 19.05.2021. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 13.04.2023 and 29.03.2023 respectively.

5. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission, and other case records are that the Respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum Una, Himachal Pradesh, alleging that on 25.04.2016, the complainant/respondent sent a mobile by speed post of India Post from Post Office, Amb to his sister, residing in New Delhi. When after one week complainant tracked the item on India Post Website, it showed that the packet containing the item reached New Delhi on 27.04.2016, but item was not loaded there. Complainant filed complaint of website of India Post on 30.05.2016 but no reply was received from them. It was alleged that the cost of mobile phone was Rs.9500/- and some one had stolen the mobile from the packet. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum with the prayer for direction to the OPs to pay cost of mobile and also the litigation charges etc.

6. The Petitioners/OPs contested the case before the District Forum and filed reply also. They contended that the complaint is not maintainable. They also contended that such type of articles costly/precious gifts are mandatorily required to be sent as insured to avoid risk as per clause 172,173,176 and 184 of Post Office Guide Part-1, as the insurance covers all risks in course of transmission by post. It was also contended in their reply that the online complaint was received by the OP-2 on 03.05.2016 on Customer Care Portal of the Department and it was properly taken up with destined office stage by stage. The complaint was under active consideration by the time complainant filed the case before the District Forum. However, during the inquiry it is revealed that the said article has been lost in the transit and the complainant can be compensated to its effect as per the laid down procedure and in the light of Departmental rules and instructions issued from time to time.

7. Vide order dated 29.04.2019, the District Forum allowed the complaint with the direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.9499/- the cost of mobile phone to the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the amount is paid. Rs. Rs.5000/- was granted to the complainant for mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost

Click Here to Read the rest of this document