Former Director-General, Prisons, V.K. Singh dragged India Post to a district consumer commission after articles from a package he sent through India Post went missing. The commission, finding fault with India Post, and, rejecting its stand that Mr Singh should have insured the package, directed them to pay compensation of ₹ 20,000.
In a complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–III, Hyderabad, Mr. Singh stated that it was in June last year that he sent articles in four packets at the General Post Office in Abids to Haridwar. Here, Mr Singh’s representative was asked to remove the packed articles and was asked to repackage them with sarees and bedsheets in one packet and trousers, shirts, books, and plastic container in another. He maintained that video recording taken at the GPO and at Haridwar – the destination – were different, and that the package was found to have been tampered with.
For its part, India Post, represented by the Chief Postmaster, stated that after Mr Singh lodged a complaint, inquiries were made, the outcome of which was that the articles were received at the delivery postoffice in good condition. These were then delivered to the addressee. In connection with directing that the articles be opened at the GPO, and then repackaged, India Post stated that supervisors are duty-bound to ensure prohibited material is not sent. They also stated that Mr Singh’s complaint of unpacking of articles at the GPO was not true. India Post also contended that in case articles were expensive, they could have been insured.
Taking the evidence and arguments placed on record, the Commission cited a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order that held relevant sections of the Indian Post Office Act of 1898 cannot be used as a cover to absolve the India Post of its responsibility and liability in case of wrong delivery or if articles in a package were reported as lost. Stating that this order fits perfectly in the instant case, the Commission directed India Post to pay ₹20,000 as compensation. Costs of ₹5,000 were also imposed.
