First Appeal No. 29 of 2012. Case: Indian Postal Department and Anr. Vs Amit Srivastava. Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 29 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Dimri, Advocate and For Respondents: None |
| Judges | B.C. Kandpal, J. (President) and C.C. Pant, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 |
| Citation | I (2014) CPJ 287 (Uttar.) |
| Judgement Date | February 19, 2014 |
| Court | Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
C.C. Pant, Member
-
This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 27.1.2012 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, in consumer complaint No. 207 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,500, within a month from the date of the order. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Amit Srivastava had sent "Net Connector" to Varanasi on 18.4.2011 by Postal Department's Speed Post service from the Post Office, Har Ki Paudi, Haridwar. The Postal Department could not deliver the speed-post article to the addressee. After seven days, when the said parcel could not reach its destination, the complainant went to the Post Office and asked about the status of parcel, but he could not get any satisfactory reply. According to the complainant, the said parcel has not reached its destination till now. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Postal Department, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 27.1.2012, in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the Postal Department has preferred this appeal through its Senior Superintendent, Indian Postal Department, Dehradun and Post Master, Har Ki Paudi, Haridwar.
-
We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of proper service of the notices upon him.
-
The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the Postal Department has not committed any deficiency in service because the article "Net Connector", which was sent by speed-post was under the list of restricted items and the same was not insured. The respondent did not inform the Postal Department about the contents of parcel. He submitted that under existing regulations of the Indian Postal Act, 1898, speed post cannot accept the electronic items. The learned Counsel also referred to Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act, which provides immunity to the officials of the Post Office, if the postal article is lost, damaged, mis-delivered or delayed. Thus, he submitted that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts and legal aspects of the case and, therefore, the impugned order is...
To continue reading
Request your trial