Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nState Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\nPostmaster vs Manoj Kumar Mardaraj on 6 July, 2022\nSTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK\n\n               FIRST APPEAL NO. 432 OF 2003\n(From an order dated 3..2002 passed by the District Consumer\nDisputes Redressal Forum, Kendrapara in CD Case No. 86 of\n2000).\n\n     1.    Postmaster, Had Post Office,\n           Kendrapaara\n\n     2.    Superintendent of Post Offices,\n           North Division,\n           At/Po/Dist - Cuttack\n                                             ... Appellants\n                           Vrs.\n\n           Manoj Kumar Mardaraj,\n           S/o Late Ghanashyam Mardaraj,\n           Proprietor - Jayashree,\n           At - Badahat, Po/Dist - Kendrapara\n\n                                                ... Respondent\n                          ____________\n          For the appellants : Mr P.K.Das, C.G.C.\n          For the respondent : None\n                           _____________\n\n\nP R E S E N T:\n\n           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT,\n                                    DR.P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER\n                                                AND\n                                  MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER\n                                 2\n\n\n\n\nDATED THE         JULY, 2022\n                               ORDER\n\nMISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER\n\n     Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.\n\n2.   None appears for the Respondent.\n\n3.   This Appeal is filed U/S 15 of erstwhile Consumer\n\nProtection Act,1986 ( hereinafter called the Act). Hereinafter,\n\nthe parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to\n\ntheir respective status before the Learned District Forum.\n\n4.   The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant has\n\nbooked a registered parcel containing silk sarees weighing\n\n3.800 grams valued at Rs.13,525/- to send same to Anita silks,\n\nBangalore on 04.12.99 through Head Post Office, Kendrapara.\n\nThe complainant     further stated that the said parcel was\n\nreturned on 22.12.99 with tampering of seals and underweight\n\ncondition with postal remarks "refused by the addressee". The\n\ncomplainant further submitted that he refused to accept\n\nsuspecting loss of contents and returned to concerned post\n\nman. The complainant further averred that he lodged a\n                                 3\n\n\n\n\ncomplaint on 23.12.99 before the O.P. no.2 through O.P no.1\n\nbut the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it. Hence he filed\n\ncomplaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the postal\n\nauthorities for tampering the postal parcel.\n\n5.   Upon notice being served, the O.Ps appeared and filed\n\ntheir written version jointly .The respondents averred that,\n\nregistered parcel was booked vide receipt No.1076 at\n\nKendrapara Head post office on 04.12.99. The O.Ps further\n\npleaded that although the registered parcel reached its\n\ndestination, but returned back with remark "refused" on\n\n21.12.99 to Kendrapara Head post office . The O.Ps further\n\nstated that the said parcel was sent to the complainant but he\n\nrefused to accept it. The O.Ps further contended that they sent\n\nan intimation to the complainant to open the delivery of parcel\n\non 23.12.1999 as per Rule-196 of P & T manual volume-V ,the\n\ncomplainant came but denied to open the parcel and\n\nsubmitted a representation to Superintendent of post office,\n                                  4\n\n\n\n\nCuttack, North Division claiming return of lost valuable\n\ncontents or cost of lost contents.\n\n6.   The O.Ps further averred that since it is a registered\n\nparcel, there is no provision in the post office rules to ascertain\n\nthe contents and cost of the materials inside it. The\n\ninvestigation into the matter is going on. The O.Ps further\n\ncontended that, as per provision of Section-3-141 of post office\n\nguide -1992, Ex-gratia compensation up to Rs.100/- can be paid\n\nto the sender on account of loss of contents of registered\n\narticle. The O.Ps also contended that section-6 of the Indian\n\nPost Office Act 1898, the O.Ps are exempted from the liability\n\nfor loss ,mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article, so\n\nthe OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.\n\n7.   After hearing both the parties, the District Forum passed\n\nthe following order .\n\n                 " xxx xxx xxx\n                 The O.Ps shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards\n           loss of postal articles and Rs.2,000/- towards compensation\n           for mental agony and in toto Rs.7,000/- to the complainant\n           within two months from the date of communication of this\n                                   5\n\n\n\n\n           order. Accordingly complaint is allowed in part. No order as\n           to cost."\n8.   Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the\n\nimpugned order passed by the Learned District Forum is illegal\n\nand bad in law. The Forum has not rightly considered the\n\nstatutory provision of Rule-196 of P & T manual Volume-V. He\n\nfurther submitted that, learned District Forum should have\n\ndismissed the complaint keeping in view of the provisions given\n\nin Section-6 of the Indian post office Act-1898 and provision\n\ngiven in Section-3,141 of the Post office guide-1992. Hence he\n\nprayed for set aside of the impugned order.\n\n9.   Considered the submission of counsel for the appellant,\n\nperused the DFR and impugned order.\n\n10. Onus lies on the complainant to prove the deficiency of\n\nservice on the part of the OPs.\n\n11. It is admitted fact that, the complainant booked the\n\nregistered parcel in dispute vide postal receipt No.1076 from\n\nKendrapara Head office on 04.12.99, which was transmitted to\n\nAnita Silks, Bangalore. It is also admitted fact that, the parcel\n                                  6\n\n\n\n\nwas returned to Kendrapara head office on 21.12.1999 with\n\npostal remark "refused". It is also admitted fact that, the\n\ncomplainant refused to accept the returned parcel due to\n\nshortage of weight. It is also not disputed that, the appellant\n\nmade a departmental complain for claiming return of lost\n\nvaluable contents or the cost of lost articles.\n\n12. On perusal of the record, it is found that the consumer\n\ndispute raised by the complainant was in regard to the alleged\n\ndeficiency in service on the part of the postal authorities by\n\ntampering the postal parcel containing sarees of valued\n\nRs.13,528/- weighting 3,800gram ,which the appellant sent\n\nthrough registered post to Anita Silks, Bangalore. Although the\n\nparcel reached its destination but it was returned back with\n\nremarks "refused".\n\n13. It is settled in law that complainant has to prove its case\n\nand deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It appears from\n\ncomplaint that complainant sent sarees for 3800 grams but has\n\nnot filed any parcel receipt showing weight of parcel content.\n                                7\n\n\n\n\nHowever, OPs admitted in written version that parcel content\n\nwas 3800 grams. Now question arises loss of weight of parcel.\n\nBut not a single document is filed by complainant to prove\n\nsame. Learned District Forum also has not found .amount of\n\nloss but computed loss amount Rs.5,000/- by guess it cannot be\n\naccepted in eye of law because every fact must b established\n\nby legal evidence.\n\n14. However, it is admitted by both parties that OPs have\n\nstarted enquiry but it is continued since two years as observed\n\nby learned District Forum. Thus, it is clearly established that\n\nthere was a default on the part of the O.Ps for not completing\n\ninquiry in the matter which is deficiency in service on the part\n\nof OPs.\n\n15. On forgoing discussion, it is crystal clear that due to\n\ndeficiency on the part of the O.Ps, the complainant         has\n\nsuffered in some extent.\n\n16. In view of above discussion while confirming order of\n\nlearned District Forum, we modify the operative portion of\n                                 8\n\n\n\n\norder directing OPs to remove deficiency in service by\n\nconcluding enquiry within one month from today and further\n\ndirect to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest @9% per\n\nannum from the date of impugned order till date of payment.\n\nNo cost.\n\n     DFR sent back forthwith.\n\n     Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or\n\nthe copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or\n\nWebsite of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied\n\nfrom this Commission.\n\nDate: .7.2022\nCuttack\n                                         ..............................\n                                        (Dr.D.P.Choudhury J)\n                                                 President\n\n                                            .....................\n                                            (Dr.P.K.Prusty)\n                                                  Member\n\n                                          .............................\n                                           (Miss S.L.Pattnaik)\n                                                 Member\n 9\n 10