BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 23rd January 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.296/2012
(Admitted on 12.09.2012)
Mr. Prabha Monterio,
804, concorde, Falnir,
Behind Sanjivini, Mangalore.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri BPG)
VERSUS
1. The Post Master General,
GPO, Near High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore
2. The Post Master,
Mercara Hills Post Office,
Mangalore.
…..........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 & No.2: Sri GKB)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The case of complainant is a postal article sent by complainant by RPAD to one Mr. Shivananda S. Wagle 103, Harmony
Apartment, Opp: Ananda Circle, Attavara, Mangalore through opposite party No.2 but it was not delivered to the addressee even the postal acknowledgment was not delivered to the complainant though charges for the purpose were paid. On representation of complainant mentioned delivery was issued to complainant on enquiry and verification it was found the registered post article was not delivered to the addressee Mr. Shivananda S. Wagle but to one Baby. It amounts to faulty service harassment duty of opposite party No.2 despite these facts brought to the notice of opposite parties no action was taken against concerned official. As such seeks the relief for deficiency in service against tops as claimed in the complaint.
II. Opposite party No.2 filed written version admits the postal article received by opposite party No.2 for delivery by RPAD but it is not known to opposite parties that Ad Card till 3.3.2012 was not received by complainant. The liability if at all Rule 170 of PO Guide Part 1 ex gratia compensation for loss of regd. Article is restricted to Rs.100/ only. The article in question was deliver to one Baby working as manager in the apartment where the addressee male in question was residing. The said Baby as in terms passed on mail to addressee himself. During enquiry it emerged that the beat postman was not obtained the authorization letter from the said Mr. Shivananda S. Wagle from baby. It is recently as orally reported that something due mentioning in the letter has been received by the said Mr. Shivananda S. Wagle with no grievance left and therefore there is no real time loss no cause of damage cost to either complainant or Mr. Shivananda S. Wagle. Hence seeks dismissal.
2. In support of the above complainants Mr. Prabha Monterio filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C7 as detailed in the annexure. On behalf of the opposite parties not led any affidavit evidence.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsel for opposite parties arguments heard. There was no representation on behalf of complainant and no notes of arguments also filed for complainant. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): A postal article delivered to opposite party No.2 for delivery and RPAD was handed over to opposite party No.2 for delivery as claimed in the complaint was not delivered to the addressed in person are not in dispute. As complainant claims for non delivery of the article addressed to the addressee Mr. Shivananda S. Wagle in person by the men of opposite party there is deficiency of service. It is to be noted that the letter addressed was not delivered to Wagle in person and whether the delivery to the Manager of the apartment building were the addressee resided is residing amounts to sufficiency of service is a matter is in dispute between the parties is the complainant a consumer and the opposite party is service provider. Hence there is a live dispute between the parties. Hence we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No.(ii): As seen from the written version of opposite party No.2 the registered postal article addressed to Wagle by opposite party received by opposite party No.2 was not delivered in person but delivered to one Mr Baby without any authorization is admitted even by opposite party No.2. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for defense it is not the case of complainant that opposite party suffered due to non delivery of the article in question to Mr. Shivananda S. Wagle either by complainant.
2. The learned counsel for opposite party has drawn our attention to section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act of the 1898 it reads thus:
6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay of damage
The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.
3. In fact National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2769 of 2002 by referring to section 6 as quoted above held that by observation the earlier reported judgment under 6 of Post Office Act in Post Master GPO Pune vs. Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat & Anr 11(1995) CPJ held that the section clearly exempts any liability of the Postal authorities in case of delay etc. unless the loss or delay is caused fraudulently or wilful Act or default.
4. In the case on hand as we can make out no loss due to non delivery in person to either the complainant and to the addressee is neither pleaded nor established. As such we are of the opinion that there are no justifiable causes as per section 6 of the Post Office Act of 1898 mentioned above. Hence we answer Point No. 2 in the negative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 6 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd January 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Mr. Prabha Monterio
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Original Postal receipt dated 10.2.2012 addressed in the Name of Sr. Shivananda Wagle bearing No:ARK 437928430IN posted from opposite party No.2 post office
Ex.C2: Office copy of the Representation of the complainant dated 3.3.2012 along with original Postal receipt bearing No.EK873163925In dated 17.3.2012
Ex.C3: Office copy of the representation of the Complainant dated 3.3.2012 along with Original Postal receipt bearing No: EK873163925IN dated 17.3.2012
Ex.C4: Office copy of the representation of the complainant dated 6.5.2012 along with Original Postal receipt bearing No: EK865634137IN dated 5.5.2012
Ex.C5: Office copy of the representation of the complainant dated 10.5.2012 along with Original Post receipt bearing No: EK869426457In dated 11.5.2012
Ex.C6: Original communication of the Opposite party No.2 Dated 8.5.2012
Ex.C7: Original Acknowledgement addressed in the name of Sri. Shivananda Wagle containing signature of unknown
Person by name “Baby” instead of Shivananda Wagle.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 23.01.2017 PRESIDENT
