Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Holds Postal Department Liable For Deficiency Of Service

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal(President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) rejected the arguments of respondent based on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 in light of allegations of negligence. The bench further highlighted that if an addressee of the letter can reasonably demonstrate the likelihood of intentional negligence by a Postal Department employee, the responsibility shifts to the department to substantiate its denial. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant submitted a complaint asserting that they sent items valued at Rs. 70,630, including an American Digital Weightless wristwatch and camera, through speed post from Karol Bagh Post Office to Kota City. The complainant claims that the speed post department failed to deliver the consignment for over two months. The opposing party (OP) did not respond despite multiple reminders and letters. The complainant requests that the OP be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for the alleged harassment and mental agony. Contentions of the opposition The opposition contended that according to the Postal Department for Speed Post Services and Operations guidelines, certain items, including precious or semi-precious items, are restricted from being sent. Rule 83A of the Indian Post Office Rules 1993 requires the sender to declare the value of government currency notes, bank notes, gold coins, etc., when dispatching a letter or parcel. It was further stated that the complaint lacks information on whether the complainant declared the articles and their value at the time of booking. The complaint does not allege that the loss resulted from a willful and fraudulent act by the post office officer. In these circumstances, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 is deemed applicable, absolving the post office officer of any liability for the loss. The party concluded that there was no deficiency in service by the Post Office, considering the package had already been allegedly returned to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is considered not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and is dismissed accordingly. Observations by the Commission The bench stated that it could not be determined if the complainant received the subject parcel back, considering the lack of documentary evidence adduced by the Respondent. Furthermore, the bench interpreted Section 6 of the aforementioned act by the agency of Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, General Post Office (GPO) v. Dipak Banerjee & Anr, which infers that in case of wilful act or default, the officers of post office will be held responsible under this section. The bench also cited Department of Post and Ors. vs. Gajanand Sharma to state that the burden of proof lies upon the respondent to prove that there is no fraudulent or willful deceit on its part. However, on perusal of the record, the Respondent failed to adduce any such document that can compensate for the reason for not returning the subject parcel to the Appellant. It was concluded that the Respondent not only failed to deliver the specified parcel to the Appellant but also lost it during transit, which establishes a service deficiency on their part, as defined by Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The bench directed the opposite party to pay Rs 1,00,000 (including the cost of articles lost in transit by the Respondent) as compensation and mental agony to the Appellant. Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. Jolly Sharma Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Ashutosh Case Title: Daya Ram Vs. Karol Bagh Post Office Case Number: FIRST APPEAL NO.- 13/2017 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Holds Postal Department Liable For Deficiency Of Service

Ayushi Rani

Tags