A Srinagar consumer commission has directed the postal department to pay over Rs 2.21 lakh to two brothers whose consignment containing 38 mobile phones, chargers and batteries was allegedly stolen while being transported from New Delhi to Srinagar in 2004.A bench of president Dr Farah Deeba and Shabnam Munshi (member) was hearing a plea filed by two brothers, Sheikh Farooq Aziz and Sheikh Khalid Aziz, and observed that the speed post centre cannot simultaneously offer a public postal service and then avoid liability by arguing that consumers should not use it for transporting valuable goods.“The value of the goods lost amounting to Rs 2,17,850 stands duly established from the purchase documents and contemporaneous record. The complainants are therefore entitled to recover the said amount together with reasonable interest and compensation for the prolonged harassment, inconvenience and mental agony suffered by them due to the negligent conduct of the opposite parties (Speed Post Centre),” the June 12 order read.Also Read | Amazon fined Rs 13,300 for failing to deliver smartwatch, refund amount to senior citizen‘Postal dept custodian of articles’The commission found that records produced by the postal authorities showed that the parcels had reached in a damaged condition and that their contents had been removed.It held that the Speed Post Centre failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the disappearance of the articles or the substantial reduction in the weight of the parcels.The commission observed that the postal department acted as the custodian of the consignments from the time they were booked until delivery and was under a legal obligation to explain how the contents went missing.It was held that once the consignments were accepted for transmission against consideration, the speed post centre had assumed a duty to deliver them in the same condition in which they were entrusted.It was held that the allegation of loss is not founded merely upon the assertions of the complainants, but stands substantially supported by the records of the speed post centre themselves.The commission directed the speed post centre to pay Rs 15,000 as litigation charges.It pointed out that the complaint does not arise out of any sale or purchase of mobile phones, but out of the hiring of speed post services.It was further noted that the complainants paid the prescribed postal charges and entrusted their consignments to the opposite parties for carriage and delivery.The consumer body noted that the service hired was therefore a postal service and not a commercial transaction involving the sale of goods.It was placed on record that the complainant was pressing for redressal and that the matter required urgent attention.‘Postal service, not a commercial sale’The consumer forum held that the provision of the Indian Post Office Act cannot be interpreted so broadly as to shield acts of negligence established from the evidence on record.Where the departmental investigation itself discloses abstraction of contents and unexplained shortage in weight, the defence founded upon statutory immunity loses much of its force.It added that the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to provide effective redressal to consumers against deficient services.Once a deficiency in service is established, the consumer bodies are empowered to award reasonable compensation commensurate with the loss proved on record.The commission added that these documents unmistakably demonstrate that the postal department itself considered the allegations serious and worthy of investigation.The consumer body pointed out that the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, is to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumer.It was added that the goal of the Act is to settle consumer disputes quickly in a summary proceeding to ward off the perplexities of an aggrieved consumer by seeking a remedy in the form of a regular civil case.It was added that the linchpin of the Act is to promote the welfare of society and enable the consumers to participate directly in the market economy.Speed post service booked in 2004The complainants claimed that they were running a business of mobile phones with the financial assistance of the bank in a shop, namely “Haji & Sons”, situated in Srinagar, and had booked a consignment of four parcels containing mobile sets with the speed post centre in New Delhi, which had to be delivered in Srinagar in 2004.Also Read | Woman wins Rs 12,300 payout as store refuses to replace ill-fitting jeansHowever, it was alleged that the complainants received only two parcels in good condition and the other two, containing 38 mobile phones along with chargers and batteries worth Rs 2.17 lakh, were damaged and hence one of the complainants refused to accept the damaged consignment.It was further contended that the damaged consignment was opened in the presence of the said speed post centre and it was found that they were without the mobile phones, chargers and batteries.It was alleged that the weight of the two damaged parcels was less than the expected weight, which clearly depicted that the mobile phones, chargers and batteries were stolen due to the negligence of the said speed post centre.Story continues below this adSubsequently, the complainants intimated the said speed post centre officials through applications in September 2004, requesting to pay the value of the damaged article. The centre assured them of investigating the matter, but despite making several applications regarding payment of damages, the speed post centre allegedly did not pay any heed to the request.Aggrieved, the complainants filed a case before the consumer body, maintaining that the speed post centre handled the consignment negligently and inappropriately and indulged in unfair trade practice and is liable for being deficient in service.The complainant was represented by advocate Intikhab Parray in the matter.‘Should have carried parcels himself’Representing the postal centre, advocate Mudasir Malik submitted that if the consignment was carrying some valuable items, it was the duty of the complainant to get the items insured and sought to know why the complainant chose to book the consignment in Delhi through post and receive it at Srinagar, when he himself travelled from Delhi to Srinagar to receive the same.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Couple gets Rs 1.32 lakh refund as Country Club fails to give holiday membership benefitIt was claimed that the complainant created a justification for claiming compensation from the speed post centre by choosing to deliver the consignment through ordinary speed post.It was further submitted that the complainant should have carried the articles himself while travelling.Significance of rulingThis ruling underscores that a service provider cannot evade liability by arguing that consumers should not have entrusted valuable goods to it in the first place.Once a postal authority accepts a consignment for consideration, it assumes a duty to deliver the articles in the same condition and cannot later shift the blame onto consumers by suggesting that they should have personally carried the goods or avoided using the service altogether.Story continues below this adFor consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Commission Helpline: 1800 180 7114) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.