Consumer disputes redressal forum ordered the Dept of Posts to pay RS 12,000 as compensation to a woman whose cell phone the department failed to deliver. 

Trichy: The district consumer disputes redressal forum, Trichy, ordered the department of posts to pay compensation to a woman whose cell phone the department failed to deliver.
The forum, headed by its president S Sengottaiyan and member M Maraikamalai, held that the department of posts should award a compensation of Rs 5,000 with 6% interest per annum and Rs 3,900 towards the cost of the mobile phone and ordered the department to pay the litigation of cost of Rs 2,000 to the complainant on May 9, 2016.

RS Theresa Sahayanathan from Kallakudi on the outskirts of Trichy sent a new cell phone worth Rs 4,250 through speed post from the Kallakudi post office to Fredrick Rajkumar in GN Mills in Coimbatore on January 12, 2012.

As the consignment was not delivered even after a week, the sender tracked the parcel online and found that it reached the speed post section of the Coimbatore post office on January 13, 2012.
When Theresa brought the matter before the postal department, the senior superintendent of the post office offered Rs 112 as compensation citing section 6 of the Post Office Act that gives protection to the postal authorities for non-delivery or loss in transit if there is no wilful default on the part of the department.

Unsatisfied with the slew of replies of the postal department, she approached the consumer protection council, Tamil Nadu, to take up the matter before the consumer forum, which filed a case on June 10, 2014.

During the course of the trial, secretary of the consumer forum S Pushpavanam said the speed post article was lost due to the wilful act of the personnel of the postal department, which will amount of deficiency of service. 

Countering the argument, counsel for the postal department argued that the valuable articles should be insured by the sender and insisted that the complainant was not entitled for compensation. 
The forum also took into account section 172 of the Indian Post Office Act that says parcels may be insured by the customer and it is not mandatory. After citing several judgments in various states across the country, the forum held the personnel in the speed post section in Coimbatore responsible for the loss of the cellphone. 

The forum pointed out that there was no effort made to trace the parcel in the small room of the Coimbatore speed post centre. "There is no possibility for loss or non-delivery in a small room. So, it is evident that the employees in the speed post centre deliberately committed wilful act by not delivering the speed post parcel sent by the complainant. In such circumstances, section 6 of the India Post Office Act does not give protection to the postal officials," read the order.