1. Haji Muhammad Ameen of Sialkoti Gate Gujranwala filed this complaint against the Post Master General Punjab and Chief Post Master Gujranwala claiming that on 14-06-08 he deposited a packet containing of ladies silk suit amounting to Rs. 5000/- for its delivery via urgent mail service to Miss Mussart at Masjid Road, Quetta against receipt No. 52 dated 14-06-08 but the same could not see it's destination. The postal authorities were approached time and again but after conducting departmental enquires they could not locate the said parcel. Consequently the complainant after serving the necessary legal notice filed the instant complaint invoking jurisdiction of Consumer Court. Respondents Chief Post Mater Gujranwala and Post Master General put their appearance in response to process issued by this court with the stance that post office is not guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service while dispatch and delivery of said parcel. It was explained by respondents that the above referred parcel was deposited as UMS article by the complainant without disclosing its contents and without insurance. The said parcel was handed over to the concerned staff of Pakistan International Airline at Islamabad Airport and during transaction the same was lost for which staff of the Airline is only responsible.
2. Counsel for respondents placed on record a letter issued by Manager Express Post Center Quetta dated 17-10-08 indicating that the said parcel was not received by the postal authorities Quetta.
3. Another letter dated 14-10-08 issued by Chief Post Master Gujranwala is also on the record repeating the same story about the endless journey of the parcel which was transmitted though PIA but could not be received at post office Quetta as was lost by the cargo office of Pakistan International Airline Islamabad. Ultimately the postal authorities lost the hope and granted sanction allowing the pay of Rs. 100/- compensation to the sender of the article lost vide letter No. EP-1/UMS/52/08 dated 23/02/09.
4. In this case, contention of the complainant regarding entertainment of the parcel at Gujranwala post office and its subsequent missing during transaction is admitted although with some reservations that complainant himself was negligent having not complaint with the relevant rules of the post office as he failed to declare value of the parcel at the time of its booking without getting the same insured. Here, for convenience, I would like to reproduce article 146 of postal guide.
5. "146. Cases in which insurance is compulsory Coin, bullion, platinum, precious stones, jewellery, currency notes, articles of gold and silver and other articles of an intrinsic value exceeding Rs. 500 may be sent by post only insured letters or insured parcels. If a letter or parcel presented at the post office window is found to contain and such object of value, it will not be accepted for transmission by post unless the sender insured this; and, if an uninsured article manifestly containing any such object of value is found is course of transmission by post, it will be either intercepted or returned to the sender or forwarded to the destination and delivered to the addressee subject to the payment of this fee will not impose any liability on the Central Government"
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record as well as rules minutely. Admitted case of the parties is that the complainant has sent the parcel which never reached at its destination till now. Only explanation has come forth that the same was not got insured and its value was not declared by the sender. The hard fact which is undeniable in this case is that the parcel was lost during its transmission by the post office. The sender is not concerned with the third party (PIA cargo) to whom the post office has delivered the parcel. As it was never asked or desired by the sender that which specific course should be adopted by the post office. So this plea of defence is not available to the postal department as a means for depriving the sender of the legitimate claim for compensation for the loss of parcel during the course of transmission. As far as rule 146 of the postal guide is concerned that a parcel of an intrinsic value exceeding Rs. 500/- may be sent by post only in insured parcel is concerned, this rule was enacted for the guidance of employees of the post office and it was, vide this rule, mandatory for the post office that if a letter or parcel presented at the post office window is found to contain any such object of value, it will not be accepted for transmission by post unless the sender got it insured. If the sender has not declared its value the post office should not have received the same. Once the postal department has accepted and entertained the parcel it is not permissible for them to take such stand. Why they failed to intercept the same and return to sender is a question raising doubt about the efficiency of service rendered by post office, therefore, I am convinced that default on the part of postal authority is established because registered parcel containing a piece of ladies suit was not delivered to its addressee. Therefore respondents are held guilty of deficiency in service, However, determination of compensation as Rs. 100/- is not more than a joke by the postal authorities with its customer. In the absence of any receipt of the ladies suit inside the parcel, the average price of such like a gift is determined as Rs. 2000/- the cost for the parcel delivery Rs. Received by post office shell also be paid to the customer. The correspondence ensuing between complainant and postal authorities is approximately determined as Rs. 200/- whereas cost of litigation is fixed as Rs.
7. 2200/- plus other relevant expenditure as Rs. 300/-. All such amount shell be paid by the respondents to complainant forthwith. The complaint is accepted in the above said terms. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.