Hyderabad: Forum orders Postal Department to pay Rs 35,000 for lost parcel
Hyderabad: DRDL director Dr Atul Sen has won a case against the postal department in the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-3. The Forum found fault with an old legislation covering the Postal Department that claims that it is not liable for any loss of parcels sent via the postal service.
Dr Sen alleged in his complaint that articles worth Rs 35,000 sent by him by registered post through the Indian Postal Department were lost. The registered parcel contained five sarees and three pyjama-kurta suits for his daughter's in-laws in Ludhiana, Punjab, in March 2015.
The addressee, Subodh Behri, received the parcel but it contained waste papers and old magazines. The post master at Model Town, Ludhiana, took no notice of the complaint.
Dr Sen then lodged a complaint with the post master at Kanchanbagh post office. When he didn't get a reply, he filed a Right to Information application in July 2015 with the senior superintendent of the post office. The RTI reply exposed the shoddy investigation done by the postal department.
The complainant alleged that delivery of the parcel containing waste paper and magazines caused him much embarrassment and loss of respect before his newly married daughter’s family.
The postal department claimed that it received huge numbers of registered parcels every day and in case of loss of articles, statutory rules provide payment of compensation of Rs 100 to the sender.
The postal department argued that assuming that there is just 1 per cent (or less) cases of loss of packets, the government would have to pay huge amounts in compensation. It cannot bear this sort of liability when it is rendering a valuable service to the people.
Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 says the government will not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in the course of transmission by Post.
The forum pointed out that in 1996, the National Postal Commission had commented on the antiquated nature of the provisions of the Indian Postal Act, and had said that it should be reviewed “so as to incorporate suitable amendments and modifications to bring it in tune with the functioning of a democratic and accountable government.”
The forum found wilful default or fraudulent act and directed the postal superintendent and department to pay Rs 35,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 3,000 as costs.
Doctor wins case on edu consultant
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-3 has ordered International Medical EDU Services to refund Rs 9 lakh and pay compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh to a doctor, after the agency failed to get her a visa for Germany to pursue a post-graduate degree in dermatology and failed to repay her.
Dr Brahmani Dantala, 26, of Mansoorabad, Bandlaguda, filed a complaint with the forum against International Medical EDU Services, an education consultant located in Hyderguda, IMES India Private Limited, Secunderabad, and one G. Rathna Reddy of Hyderguda.
Dr Dantala alleged that International Medical EDU Services had promised to assist in providing an invitation letter in order to procure the visa, residence in Germany, obtaining scholarships and coaching in German language as a package deal. The total expenses for the entire course would be Rs 13 lakh, apart from 8,400 Euros that had to be deposited in the bank.
In October 2013, Dr Dantala entered into a service agreement with EDU Services. Her parents sold their gold ornaments and pooled their savings to pay Rs 13 lakh to secure their daughter’s admission for the PG course.
Dr Dantala submitted her visa application in March 2014 with all requisite documents. However, the application was rejected in May 2014 and she requested a refund of Rs 12.55 lakh.
The cheques issued by EDU Services in February 2015 bounced due to insufficient funds. The opposite parties paid Rs 3.5 lakh in cash in April 2015. Cheques for the remaining amount bounced for a second time.
The consumer forum opined that when the visa of the complainant was rejected, the opposite parties ought to have refunded the amount after deducting their processing charges. Their failure to do so constitutes a deficiency of service. The forum said that the opposite parties are held jointly and severally liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
