Speed Post

adminadmin Administrator
edited October 2012 in Miscellaneous
Mr. L. Thousif Mohamed,
No.15, I Floor, 2nd Cross Street, Complainant
Seethamma Extension, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.

Vs

1. The Deputy Manager (C.S.)
Speed Post Business Office,
Greams Road P.O. Building
Chennai – 600 006. Opposite parties

2. The Post Master,
Teynampet Post Office,
Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.

Date of Complaint 27.03.2006

M/s.M. Muniruddin Sheriff, A.Md.Asghar Ali. : Advocate for the complainant
and R. Sharbat Ali,

Mr. S. Nagarajan, A.C.G.S.C. : Counsel for the OPs 1 & 2.
O R D E R
THIRU. P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT

Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

The complainant had sent a letter through speed post addressed to one Mr.Faizur Rahman, Auckland, New Zealand, on 23.10.2004 from the 2nd opposite party post office. But the addressee did not receive the said letter. The complainant gave a compliant to the 2nd opposite party on 26.11.2004 regarding non-delivery of the cover. The 1st opposite party replied by letter dated 09.12.2004 and told that the disposal of the item was not traceable at the office of destination country despite its receipt on 26.11.2004 and had sought for the copy of the receipt. The complainant forwarded the copy of the receipt to the 1st opposite party on 01.12.2004. But, the 1st opposite party sent cheque for Rs.425/- towards refund of the speed post article charges on 22.01.2005. The complainant sent documents by speed post and the cover was properly addressed. The documents contained vital information and the non-receipt of the same by addressee had resulted in financial loss to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3000/- towards telephone calls. Hence, the opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint claiming cost of the speed post charges of Rs.425/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/-for mental agony and Rs.3000/- as cots of the complaint.


2. The opposite party filed version and contended inter alia that the complainant had booked an EMS item at the 2nd opposite party Post Office by Speed Post addressed to Mr.Faizur Rahman, Auckland, New Zealand. But, that item was not traceable at the office of destination country despite its receipt on 26.10.2004 and therefore speed post charges of Rs.425/- paid by the complainant was refunded to him for non-delivery of the item on 21.1.2005. As per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the complainant is entitled to compensation for loss of international item to the extent of Rs.1975/- or the value of the contents whichever is less. Since the complainant did not submit supportive documents, the compensation was not granted. The disposal of EMS item was not traceable at the office of the destination country. The complaint of non-delivery cannot be tried in India under the Act and as such this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.


3. Proof affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibits B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.


4. The points that arise for consideration are;-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite party?
2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?


5. Point No.1: The complainant admittedly sent a letter through Speed Post from the 2nd opposite party Post Office to one Mr.Faizur Rahman, Auckland, New Zealand on 23.10.2004. But the letter was not received by the addressee. The complainant made a complaint with the opposite party and he was informed that the item was not traceable at the office of the destination country and the 1st opposite party refunded Rs.425/- towards Speed Post article charges. The complainant would submit that the act of the opposite party in non delivery of the letter amounts to deficiency in service and he is entitled to compensation for mental agony.


6. The opposite party would submit that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and therefore the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. The opposite party further submits that as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the sender is eligible for compensation for the loss of international item to the extent of 30 SDR, which is equivalent to Rs.1975/- or value of the contents whichever is less. In this case, the article was send by the Speed Post from the 2nd opposite party Post office at Chennai. A portion of the cause of action arise at Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the complaint is maintainable under section 11(2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.


7. The complainant was already offered refund of Rs.425/- being the Speed Post charges for non delivery of the letter. Since the complainant did not submit supportive documents for paying compensation he was not paid the amount of compensation as per the section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. Ex A10 was the claim form issued to the complainant and the complainant submitted the same to the opposite party. But, he has not submitted any supportive documents for the claim of the Rs.23,000/-. Hence, the department did not pay the compensation for the articles lost. The opposite party relied on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No.15/97, dated 18.09.2002 in the case of Vijay Rattan Aggarwal, wherein the Commission has held that
“ the right of the consumer cannot go beyond
what is statutorily fixed.”
Therefore, the department is liable to pay compensation as per the section 6 of the Indian Post office Act. The complainant did not submit relevant documents to claim compensation and as such no compensation was paid. This contention of the Opposite party cannot be accepted. The non delivery of the article is nothing but deficiency in service.


7. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.425/- being the costs of the speed post and to pay compensation of Rs.1975/- as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and Rs.3000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 125 / 2008[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Sri Kanchi Kumaran Silks, Rep. by is Proprietor, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]P. Veera Bhadra, S/o P. Veeraiah, aged about 35 years, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Hindu, Sarees Business, Manufacturers of handloom, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Quality pure silk Sarees, Pure Cotton Sarees, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]D.No. 7/138-1, jayanagar colony, Kadapa, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Kadapa District. [/FONT][FONT=&quot] ….. Complainant. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Vs. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1) Gati Transport Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Regd. Office situated at 1-7-293, Mahatma Gandhi road, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Secunderabad – 500 003. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2) Gati Transport Ltd, Rep. by its South India Incharge, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] M.R. Garden, Near Old Bowenpally, Hyerabad. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]3) Gati Transport Ltd, Rep. by its Manager, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Madho Seth Lane Area, Kolkata. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]4) Gati Transport Ltd, Rep. by its Manager, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Kadapa office, D.No. 1-1-116, Chinnachowk, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Kadapa, Kadapa district (AP). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]….. Respondents. [/FONT]

    This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 3-04-2009 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
    O R D E R


    [FONT=&quot](Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President), [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant was doing cotton, Handloom and silk cloth business at Kadapa and used to send return parcel of surplus stock of embroidery sarees through R4, which were purchased from Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar, who was a dealer of all types of embroidery sarees and Lahanga Chunni sets. The respondents were doing business of transportation of goods throughout India. On 20-10-2007 the complainant sent parcel of embroidery sarees to Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar of Kolkata through R4. The R4 collected Rs. 672/- from the complainant and issued a docket bearing L.R. No. 425486373. It was mentioned in the docket about the assured date of delivery as 26-10-2007. The value of the goods was Rs. 57,365/- + Rs. 24,990/-. By mistake R4 mentioned in the docket that the value of the goods was Rs. 57,365/- and missed to mention other amount of Rs. 24,990/-. It was not observed by the complainant. The R4 had not given any receipt or L.R for Rs. 24,990/-. The complainant received a letter dt. 14-11-2007 from Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar, Kolkata that the goods were not received at Kolkata and also informed to the complainant that a false stamp and duplicate signature by somebody at R3 was placed and R3 delivered to some person. The complainant enquired R4, who informed the complainant that by mistake the value of the goods of Rs. 24,990/- was not mentioned but mentioned only Rs. 57,365/- about missing of the goods. The complainant contacted the R2 by phone about missing of the goods, who expressed to enquire and secure the goods. But it was not happened. At last the complainant got issued a notice dt. 30-1-2008 to R1 to R2 and R4 to pay Rs. 57,365/- and Rs. 24,990/- towards value of consignment. The R2 and R4 failed to give reply but R1 sent an interim reply dt. 6-2-2008 and a detailed reply dt. 28-2-2008 with false allegations. In the reply notice R1 expressed that there was no proof with regard to the consignment worth of Rs. 24,990/- and a criminal case was already pending before court of law with regard to missing of goods and disputed amount and hence, it was not possible to deal with the disputed amount of Rs. 57,365/-. Therefore, there was clear deficiency of service on the part of the respondents and hence, the complainant was filed for Rs. 82,355/- (Rs. 57,365/- + Rs. 24,990/-) towards cost of the missing parcel with interest @ 24% p.a. from 20-10-2007 till the date of payment and Rs. 15,000/- towards damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]3. The respondents filed a counter that the complaint was not maintainable as it was a commercial transaction. The consignment was booked to Kolkata from Kadapa on 20-10-2007 from Kanchi Kumaran Silks to Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar vide docket No. 425486373. Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar was not impleaded as a necessary party and hence, the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The declared value of the consignment was Rs. 57,365/- and the consignment was delivered at Kolkata on 26-10-2007. When the consignee came with written complaint, a legal action against franchisee was taken vide FIR No. 114/2007. A complaint was filed in C/No. 1056/2007 before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bankshall court situated at Kolkata. The investigation report revealed that the allegation was a mistake of fact. Even though the consignment was delivered, the respondents filed a wrong case against its franchisee. There was no record available that Rs. 24,990/- worth of goods was not mentioned in the docket. The consignment was delivered and so there was no deficiency of service and thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]i.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]ii.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]iii.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]To what relief?[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A6 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 to B4 were marked. No written arguments were filed by both parties. [/FONT]

    6. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant was Sri Kanchi Kumaran Silks doing sarees business, cotton, Handloom and silk cloths at Kadapa. They used to purchase embroidery sarees and Lahanga Chunni sets from one Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar of Kolkata and used to send the parcel with surplus stock to him through R4 i.e. Gati Tranport Ltd., Kadapa branch. On 20-10-2007 the complainant sent parcel of embroidery sarees to Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar of Kolkata through R4 branch under docket No. 425486373, dt. 20-10-2007. It was Ex. A1. In Ex. A1 assured delivery date was shown as 26-10-2007 and the value of the consignment was Rs. 57,365/- and the charges collected by R4 was Rs. 672/-. The complainant filed Ex. A2 Xerox copy of bills for Rs. 24,990/- dt. 6-10-2007 and Rs. 57,365/- dt. 6-10-2007 in favour of Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar of Kolkata. But in Ex. A1 the value of the consignment was written as Rs. 57,365/- but not mentioned another amount of Rs. 24,990/-. There was no proof that the goods worth of Rs. 24,990/- was also included in the returned consignment. After enquiries the consignment was not reached to Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar of Kolkata. He wrote a letter to the complainant dt. 14-11-2007 that he did not receive the goods. But he contacted R3 who showed their copy of docket having a signature with stamp of Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar with date 26-10-2007. It was not his signature and it was put by somebody. The letter was Ex. A3 from Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar. Later the complainant got issued a notice to R1, R2 and R4 demanding payment of Rs. 82,355/- i.e. Rs. 57,365/- + Rs. 24,990/- as the consignment was not delivered to the consignee namely Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar. The office copy of notice was Ex. A4, dt. 30-1-2008. The R3 sent an interim reply to the complainant that they would enquire the matter and submit a detailed reply. The Xerox copy of interim reply dt. 6-2-2008 was Ex. A5. Ex. A6 was the Xerox copy of reply notice that the legal action has been taken against their franchisee namely Mr. Raghuabans Mani Tiwari, as the consignment was not delivered to the consignee and a complaint was also filed before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bankshall court situated at Kolkata and there was no record available with regard to the transaction of the consignment worth of Rs. 24,990/- but it was not possible to deal with the disputed amount of Rs. 57,365/- in view of criminal case pending for disposal. More over some other persons have also not received the consignments including Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar.
    7. The respondents filed a Xerox copy of copy of docket with alleged signature with stamp of Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar with date 26-10-2007. It was Ex. B1. The signature of Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar on Ex. B1 and on Ex. A3 were not same. In case the complainant had not impleaded the consignee as a necessary party it was the duty of the complainant to implead consignee as one of the respondents. It was not done so. More over the R3 gave a complaint to Posta police station, Kolkata with regard to the non-delivery of consignment on the basis of complaints from customers. There were six non-delivery of the consignments including the consignment with docket No. and date mentioned in Ex. A1 and Ex. B1. The complaint given to the Posta Police station, Kolkata was on 19-11-2007. The Posta Police station, Kolkata registered a case as Cr. No. 114/2007 in which the consignment sent by the complainant to be delivered to Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar on 26-10-2007 which was mentioned in Ex. B2 was also noted. The Xerox copy of FIR was Ex. B3. On 2-12-2008 the Posta Police station, Kolkata gave a letter to R3 that the case was declared as mistake of fact. The Xerox copy of letter issued by the police was Ex. B4 in which the Cr. No. 114/2007 was shown with dt. as 18-10-2007 but in Ex. B3 the date of the registration of the complaint was shown as 23-12-2007. It showed that the Posta police station, Kalkatta had not enquired properly about missing consignment shown in Ex. B2 including the consignment sent by the complainant under Ex. A1. In these circumstances it is very clear that the consignment sent by the complainant to Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar was not delivered on 26-10-2007. Ex. B1 had not the signature of the consignee but some persons put the signature and took delivery of the consignment. Therefore, it was a very clear negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. There was no proof that the complainant sent consignment total worth of Rs. 82,355/-, but it was sent only the goods worth of Rs. 57,365/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 57,365/- towards cost of the missing parcel.

    8. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed. Directing the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 57,365/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Five Only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 20-10-2007 till the date of realization, together with Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards damages and Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) towards costs, payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. The rest of the claim is dismissed.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    M.H. Ghosh I.S.P.W. Staff Colony Quarters No. A-1 OMBR Layout Doddabanasawadi Bangalore 560 043 Complainant

    V/S

    The Manager GATI, Ahead in Reach No. 27/7, Mission Road S.R. Nagar, Bangalore 560 027 Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale

    This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case are that complainant is a Central Government employee working in Inter State Police Wireless, Ministry of Home Affairs. He was transferred from Port Blair Andaman and Nicobar Island to Bangalore with deputation to Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. On transfer he had forwarded household articles through opposite party and he has paid Rs. 29,669/- towards packing and forwarding. Complainant received items in good condition except one item i.e. TV. Opposite party promised to replace with new TV, but opposite party so far evading to give TV by giving one reason or the other.
    Complainant had approached many times, but no fruitful result. Therefore, complainant was forced to file the complaint. The complainant prayed to direct the opposite party to replace the TV with new one and the cost of litigation. Alternatively, direction to opposite party to pay costs of the TV Rs. 12,900/-.



    2. Notice issued to opposite party. Notice was served by RPAD. When the case is set for appearance of opposite party on 24.04.2009 opposite party remained absent. Nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party. Defence version not sent by post also. Therefore, opposite party was placed exparte.


    3. Heard the complainant and perused the documents.


    4. The complainant has produced copy of letter addressed to opposite party dated 23.12.2008. In that letter also it is clearly mentioned the TV was broken and requested the opposite party to settle the claim. The complainant had written another letter to opposite party and informed that one colour TV Samsung was totally broken and requested the opposite party to come and settle / check the damaged items as early as possible and requested for giving compensation. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared before this forum though served with notice. It appears that the opposite party has no defence to make. That is why it has chosen not to appear. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the facts stated by the complainant. The complainant has produced receipt of TV. As per receipt the TV was purchased for Rs. 12,900/- in the year 2003. Therefore, some amount requires to be deducted towards depreciation. The complainant submitted that he may be granted reasonable amount of compensation taking into consideration of all the facts of the case. It is the duty and obligation of the opposite party to transport the articles safely to the destination.
    The opposite party has undertaken assignment of transporting the household articles by taking sum of Rs. 29,669/- towards packing and forwarding to the destination. Articles should reach the destination safely without any damage. If the TV had been totally broken during the course of transportation then it becomes the duty of the opposite party to compensate the loss caused to the complainant.
    Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect the better interests of the consumers. The complainant in this case is a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not transporting the goods in safe condition.
    Therefore, the opposite party shall compensate the complainant for the loss caused to him. On the facts of the case and taking into consideration the value of the TV I feel the ends of justice will be met in directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 9,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the loss caused to him. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER


    5. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 9,000/- to the complainant as compensation within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days above amount carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realization.
  • edited December 2009
    As i sent the application on 01.12.09 to Chennai IIT-600036 IS STILL NOT DALIVERED TO THE DESTINATION.
    please look forward and do the needfull as its urgently need to reach the IIT centre.

    thanking you,
    Shashank C
    bangalore.
    09972110614
  • edited October 2011
    SUB: LATE DELIVERY OF SPEED POST



    Respected Sir,

    With due respect, I have Complained that I have send the Two Application Form of UPTET 2011 on dated 15/10/11 by different Speed Post, Last date of Application form is 18/10/2001 , but the application form is not delivered at Mandaliya Joint Education- Director, Saharanpur- 247001 till 18th October,2011 Speed Post letter no is EV200391531IN, EV200391528IN (Photocopy enclosed), so I want to request you, please take action regarding this because this is question of my career opportunity.

    For this act of kindness i am always grateful to you.
  • mgkonarmgkonar Junior Member
    edited March 2012


    I had applied for PAN card which finally got dispatched throught speed post on 16-03-12 but m still awaiting for the delivery and online tracking is not tracing the bill no. need help...


    Acknowledgment Number








    :








    060640300543336



    Name

    :

    TUSHAR SHRIDHAR GURAV


    Category

    :
    Individual


    Status
    :
    [SIZE=+1] Your PAN card has been dispatched on 16-Mar-2012 by speed post vide airway bill no. EM170535570IN, at the address for communication* indicated by you in the application.
    [/SIZE]


    Permanent Account Number (PAN)
    :
    BDGPG6199A





  • prajapat89prajapat89 Junior Member
    edited May 2012
    SUB: LATE DELIVERY OF SPEED POST



    Respected Sir,

    With due respect, I have Complained that I have send the Application Form of IIIT ALLAHABAD 2012 on dated 12/04/12 by Speed Post, Last date of Application form is 15/04/2012 , but the application form is not delivered at IIIT ALLAHABAD ON SPECIFIED DATE ,IT REACHED ON 20 april WHICH IS LONG GAP BETWEEN SUBMISSION AND RECEIVED Speed Post letter no is
    ER126867215IN
    , so I want to request you, please take action regarding this because this is question of my career opportunity.
    MY TOTALLY AIM FOR ADMISSION IN IIIT ALLAHABAD(I HAVE GOOD QUALIFICATION BACKGROUND WITH 81% IN B-TECH ALSO GATE QUALIFY,FULFIL FOR ADMISSION IN IIIT ALLAHABAD)

    For this act of kindness i am always grateful to you.
    MUKESH PRAJAPAT S\0 BHANWAR LAL PRAJAPAT
    NEAR JAIN TEMPLE,VILL-GOTAN,TEH-MERTA CITY,DIST.-NAGAUR
    RAJ.(342902)
  • prince143prince143 Junior Member
    edited October 2012
    SUB: LATE DELIVERY OF SPEED POST



    Respected Sir,

    I have Complained that I have send the Application Form of direct recrument cell new delhi ho new delhi on dated 20/09/12 by Speed Post, Last date of Application form is 25/09/2012 , but the application form is not delivered at direct recrument cell new delhi ho new delhi ON SPECIFIED DATE ,IT delevered at 01/10/2012 WHICH IS LONG GAP BETWEEN SUBMISSION AND RECEIVED Speed Post letter no is ei375821201in

    , so I want to request you, please take action regarding this because this is question of my career opportunity.
    For this act of kindness i am always grateful to you.
    chetan verma s/o kanhaiyalal verma
    64k rampura darwaja chatri chowk garoth dist mandsour mp 458880

Sign In or Register to comment.