SUB-POSTMASTER HEAD POST OFFICE ILKAL Vs. VITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal is by the appellant/opposite party (for short, "o. P. ") challenging the order dated 28. 6. 2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bagalkot, in Complaint No. 34/2007, by which the District Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant in part.

(2.) THE case of the complainant before the District Forum was that he had entrusted a parcel containing 22 sarees to the O. P. for delivering the same to the consignee in Maharashtra State. He has also paid the required amount for the purpose of carrying the said parcel for delivery to the consignee. These facts are not disputed by the O. P. But at the time of delivery, the parcel containing the sarees was fully damaged. According to the complainant, out of 22 sarees, 12 sarees were missing and only 10 sarees were delivered to the consignee. In the presence of the "panchas" the damaged parcel was opened and it was found that there were only 10 sarees and the remaining 12 sarees were taken away. Since the parcel was in the custody of the Postal Department, necessarily some officials of the Postal Department have removed 12 sarees. The complainant has produced copy of the Bill sent to the Consignee to show that the value of each saree is Rs. 2,300. Taking all these facts into consideration, the District Forum has allowed the complaint of the complainant in part with a direction to the O. P. to pay Rs. 27,600 being the value of the missing sarees to the complainant. In addition, the District Forum has also awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000 in favour of the complainant towards mental agony and hardship. This Order is under challenge by the O. P. in this appeal.

(3.) THE case of the O. P. is that the District Forum was not right in awarding the cost of the missing sarees as compensation to the complainant. The learned Counsel for the O. P. submitted that as per the Circular governing sending of parcels, if the contents of the parcel are not disclosed by the sender, the maximum compensation that is payable by the Postal Department for a parcel is Rs. 500. Therefore, he submits that assuming that there is some "deficiency in service" on the part of the Postal Department, the District Forum at best could have awarded a sum of Rs. 500 as compensation because the contents of the said parcel were not disclosed by the complainant at the time of entrustment of the parcel to the O. P.