IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence on record – In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58(1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 14.09.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.09/2014 in which order dated 18.12.2013, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 371/2011 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by State Commission and District Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as complainant) was Respondent in the said FA/09/2014 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner(s) were OPs and Respondent was complainant before the District Commission in the CC 371/2011.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent. On account of absence of the respondent despite service, respondent was proceeded ex-parte. Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 01.11.2023. Respondent has not filed any submission.

4. 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 complainant alleges that they dispatched a parcel of goods valued at Rs. 64,900/- following an order from the Central Water Commission, North East Division No.01, Rongpur Silchar Division, using Challan No. 11 dated 12.02.2011. The parcel, identified by receipt no. EPPNO E.V. - 140493068 N, included goods along with an Echo Sounder Transducer. Upon delivery at the specified address by the postal employee, the Sub-Post Master Rongpur discovered that the parcel contained goods weighing 1538 grams, whereas the originally booked parcel had goods weighing 3800 grams. The complainant alleges that the OP/Postal Department misplaced goods totaling 2262 grams from the original 3800 grams, delivering only 1538 grams of goods at the destination. The complainant became aware of this misplacement through the Central Water Commission’s letter dated 21.02.2011. Subsequently, on 03.03.2011, the complainant sent the goods through a courier. Despite multiple written complaints to the OP, no action was taken. As a result, the complainant felt compelled to file the present complaint.

5. Vide Order dated 18.12.2013, in the CC no. 371/2011 the District Commission has allowed the complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 18.12.2013 of District Commission, Petitioners appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 14.09.2022 in FA No.09/2014 has upheld the District Commission’s order and dismissed the appeal.

7. Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 14.09.2022 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—

(i) The complainant/respondent is barred from making any claim regarding the contents and value of the parcel as they did not disclose this information at the time of booking, and the parcel was not insured. The legislative intent behind the Consumer Protection Act is to prevent malpractices and misuse. Granting indulgence to such claims without proper disclosure may lead to the misuse of the legislation. The State Commission overlooked the fact that a person cannot subsequently make a claim about the contents of a postal article and its value without disclosing the same at the time of booking, as previously adjudicated by the National Commission in several cases. The complainant is estopped from asserting that the parcel contained goods worth Rs. 64,900/- due to non-disclosure and lack of insurance.

(ii) Section 2(i) of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 defines ‘postal article’ to include a parcel. Section 6 of the Act provides immunity to the postal department, and the complainant faile