INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT vs DIWAKAR DANGI

-THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants which were opposite parties before the District Forum against order dated 23. 3. 07 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur II in Complaint No. 669/2006 by which the complaint of the complainant-respondents was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay to the complainant-respondents a sum of Rs. 425 + 24,348 in all Rs. 24,773 within two months and if the above amount was not paid within two months the appellants were further directed to pay interest @ 9% p. a. from the date of passing of the order and further the appellants were directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as costs to the complainant-respondents.

IT arises in the following circumstances: that the complainant-respondents had filed a complaint before the District Forum on 30. 6. 2006 inter alia stating that the complainant-respondent No. 2 Kamal Dangi had visited Vietnam and Bangkok (Thailand) and from Bangkok he had sent an air ticket of coming from Bangkok to Delhi through his mother who had come from Hanoi (Vietnam) to Delhi and the ticket was sent for extending the journey. It was further stated in the complaint that the said ticket after extending the journey was sent by complainant-respondent No. 1 through speed post services of the appellants on 12. 4. 2006 to Hanoi (Vietnam) where complainant respondent No. 2 was there at the following address: trinh Thi Thu Huong, to 13 Phuong Dinh Cong, quan Hoang Mai, Hanoi, Vietnam. It was further stated that for sending that envelope the appellants had charged a sum of Rs. 425 from complainant-respondent No. l. It was further stated that as per the convention, if anything is sent through speed post to abroad, that must reach to its destination within four or seven days. It was further stated that the said ticket which was sent through speed post was for the journey that was to be commenced on 26. 4. 06 from Bangkok (Thailand ) to Delhi and, therefore, the said envelope must have reached at Hanoi before 20. 4. 2006 but that had not reached there. It was further stated that the complainant-respondent No. 2 was having a ticket for the journey commencing on 25. 4. 2006 from Hanoi to Bangkok and, therefore, he had to leave Vietnam positively on 25. 4. 06 and if the ticket sent through speed post from Jaipur on 12. 4. 2006 would have reached Hanoi before 25. 4. 2006 and the complainant-respondent No. 2 would have taken the ticket with him from Hanoi to Bangkok as from that ticket flight was to be taken from Bangkok on 26. 4. 2006 and since the complainant-respondent No. 2 had a ticket for journey from Hanoi to Bangkok on 25. 4. 2006, therefore, complainant-respondent No. 2 had to leave Hanoi for Bangkok in all circumstances and even without the ticket sent from Jaipur. It was further stated that before leaving Hanoi on 25. 4. 06 the complainant-respondent No. 2 had contacted the office of the appellants at Hanoi and he was told that the ticket had not reached and thus he had to leave Hanoi on 25. 4. 2006 without the ticket and there is no dispute on the point that the ticket had reached at Hanoi on 27. 4. 2006 and before that complainant-respondent No. 2 had left Hanoi for Bangkok. Since the ticket sent from Jaipur had not reached Hanoi upto 25. 4. 2006 and since from that ticket the journey was to be taken by the complainant-respondent No. 2 from Bangkok to Delhi and therefore, he had to purchase a fresh ticket at Bangkok after paying Rs. 24,348. 48. It was further stated that on 27. 4. 2006 the ticket sent from Jaipur through speed post had reached at Hanoi and there is no dispute on that point and since the ticket sent from Jaipur had not reached at Hanoi upto 25. 4. 2006, for that deficiency this complaint was filed and further since the complainant had to purchase a fresh ticket from Vietnam to Delhi after paying a sum of Rs. 24,348. 48 , for that also the present complaint was filed by the complainants. A reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum and their case was that since the ticket in question which was sent through speed post was sent by the appellants through Singapore Airlines and if Singapore Airlines had caused delay, for that no deficiency on the part of the appellants could be attributed and further Singapore Airlines was a necessary party and further protection under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 was also sought and it was prayed that complaint be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Jaipur II through impugned order dated 23. 3. 2007 had found that since the envelope which was sent through speed post services of the appellants on 12. 4. 2006 from Jaipur to Hanoi and since it had not reached upto 25. 4. 2006 and had reached on 24. 4. 2006 thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants as the envelope sent through speed post must have reached within seven days and further since the complainant-respondent No. 2 was to leave Hanoi on 25. 4. 2006 from Hanoi to Bangkok as he had a OK ticket for that journey, therefore, he had left Hanoi without getting the ticket sent from Jaipur and he had to purchase a fresh ticket at Bangkok for his journey from Bangkok to Delhi and thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and for that deficiency the impugned order was passed by the District Forum. Agrieved from the said order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur II, this appeal has been filed by the appellants. In this appeal the learned Counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions: (i) That since in this case the letter which was sent by the appellants through speed post services was sent through Singapore Airlines by the appellants, and since delay was caused by the Singapore Airlines, therefore, for that delay the appellants could not be held responsible and Singapore Airlines was a necessary party. (ii) That the appellants are entitled to protection under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. (iii) That the amount of compensation as awarded by the District Forum is on higher side and that was not just and proper.

On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as for the respondents and gone through the entire materials available on record. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that the fact that speed post letter was despatched from Jaipur on 12. 4. 2006 for Hanoi and the same had reached at Hanoi on 27. 4. 2006 is not in dispute and there is also no dispute on the point that the said letter was sent by the appellants through Singapore Airlines services.

THERE is also no dispute on the point that since the letter containing the ticket for journey from Bangkok to Delhi on 26. 4. 06 had not reached at Hanoi upto 25. 4. 2006 and since the complainant-respondent No. 2 had a ticket for journey from Hanoi to Bangkok on 25. 4. 2006, therefore, he had left Hanoi for Bangkok on 25. 4. 2006 without receiving the envelope containing the ticket sent from Jaipur on 12. 4. 2006 and there is also no dispute on the point that since the ticket sent from Jaipur was not received at Hanoi upto 25. 4. 06, therefore, the complainant-respondent No. 2 had to purchase a fresh ticket at Bangkok for journey from Bangkok to Delhi on 26. 4. 2006. Thus, in the facts and circumstances just narrated above, the question for consideration is whether the findings recorded by the District Forum could be sustained or not. Reg. Point No. 1 So far as the plea of the appellants that Singapore Airlines was a necessary party is concerned, this argument carries no weight as there was no privity of contract between the complainants-respondents and the Singapore Airlines. If that envelope containing the ticket was sent by the appellants through the courier services of the Singapore Airlines and if any deficiency is committed by the Singapore Airlines, that would be a matter between the two but so far as the complainant-respondents are concerned, they had got no concerned with Singapore Airlines as they have not hired any services of the Singapore Airlines and further no consideration has passed between the two.

FOR the reasons it is held that the Singapore Airlines in the present case not a necessary party and first argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants stands rejected. Reg. point No. 2

THE next question is whether the appellants could get the benefit of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 or not. It may be stated here that the purpose of speed post is that letters are delivered within a certain period.

In our considered opinion even in cases where the letters are sent through speed post no immunity under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 would be applicable to the appellants.

IT may be stated here that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act does not operate to preclude claims for compensation being made against the postal department for non-delivery of articles despatched by speed post because the postal department undertakes to deliver the articles within specified period of time and in consideration thereof a substantial extra charge is levied. Thus, the appellant was under a special obligation for quick delivery of such a letter. Thus, it is held that the benefit of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 would not be applicable to the appellants and thus the second argument raised by the appellants also stands rejected. Reg. Point No. 3

THERE is no dispute on the point that the complainant-respondent No. 2 had purchased a fresh ticket for his journey from Bangkok to Delhi as the ticket which was sent from Jaipur for his journey from Bangkok to Delhi had not reached at Hanoi upto 25. 4. 06 after paying a sum of Rs. 24,348. 48 and that amount was rightly ordered to be paid by the appellants to the complainant-respondents and on that point the findings recorded by the District Forum are liable to be confirmed one. In this case the next question for consideration is whether the findings recorded by the District Forum by which appellants were ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony could be justified or not. It may be stated here that the consumer is entitled for compensation for any loss or injury suffered due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the consumers should not put to any inconvenience for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

IN this case certainly and undoubtedly when the ticket in question had not reached at Hanoi upto 25. 4. 2006, mental tension would have certainly been faced by the complainant-respondent No. 2 and further when he had to leave Hanoi for Bangkok on 25. 4. 2006 without the ticket for his journey that was to be taken by the complainant-respondent No. 2 from Bangkok to Delhi on 26. 4. 2006 and certainly when he had to purchase a fresh ticket for that journey a mental harassment would have certainly been faced by the complainant-respondent No. 2. Thus, in this case for inconvenience faced by the complainant-respondent No. 2 they are entitled to compensation for mental agony, discomfort, frustration, disappointment and mental stress in life.

IN this case the District Forum has ordered that the appellants would pay a sum of Rs. 24,348. 48 as the amount of ticket purchased by complainant-respondent No. 2 from Bangkok to Delhi and further for deficiency in service on the part of the appellants a sum of Rs. 50,000 as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as amount of costs. Looking to all facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation as awarded by the District Forum to the tune of Rs. 50,000 could not be justified and in our considered opinion taking into consideration that since the complainant-respondent No. 2 had paid Rs. 24,348. 48 for purchasing the ticket and had to face inconvenience, therefore, if a sum of Rs. 50,000 in lump sum are ordered to be paid by the appellants to the complainant respondents including the amount of compensation for mental agony, that would meet the ends of justice.

It may be stated here that while preferring the appeal the appellants had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 with the District Forum.

ACCORDINGLY, this appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed on merits. However, on point of compensation this appeal is partly allowed in the manner that now the complainants-respondents would be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 50,000 in lump sum from the appellants as stated above and to that extent on point of compensation the impugned order dated 23. 3. 2007 passed by the District Forum Jaipur II is modified. Since the appellants had already deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 with the District Forum, Jaipur II the complainants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are free to take the above amount from the office of the District Forum along with interest that had accrued on it. Appeal partly allowed.