Before the District Forum Kurnool

Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

And

Smt C. Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, B.com LL.B, Member

Monday the 7^th day of February, 2005

C.D.No.136/2004

M.Abdul Sattar,

S/o M.Dasthagir Saheb,

D.No.86/387

F.C.I. Colony,

Kurnool District.                      . ..Complainant represented by his counsel

                                                    Sri.K.Onkar.

-Vs-

1. The Sub Post Master,

B-Camp Post Office,

Kurnool.                         . ..Opposite party No.1 represented by his counsel

                                                    Sri.M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma

1. The Superintendent of Post Officer,

Kurnool Division,

Kurnool.                         . ..Opposite party

O R D E R

(As per Sri K.V.H. Prasad, President)

1.       This is a case where the deficiency of service  of the postal department is alleged in not properly responding to the complainant, who purchased on 03-12-1990 Indira Vikas Patras No.20-C/632549, D/18-211532 of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively from opposite party No.1 (Sub/Post Master, B-Camp, Kurnool) who is functioning under the opposite party No.2 and lost them on the same day, while returning from the said post office and as they remained beyond trace as per the certificate of the policy (Ex.A1) he has intimated the same in writing vide Ex.A2 to the opposite parties on the same day for the necessary action and also  in writing vide Ex.A3 after the date of the maturity seeking the necessary disposal of the matter and for refunding the due amount under the said   Indira Vikas Patras.  The opposite parties in reply to the complainant Ex.A4 letter except merely alleging in Ex.A5 (Reply) that there is no provision for claiming on stolen, mutilated and defaced Indira Vikas Patras, did not entertain the claim.  The opposite parties remained exparte to the case proceedings in-spite of receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant.

2.       Hence, the point for consideration is whether the opposite parties are justified in their responsive conduct towards the claim or it amounts to any deficiency of service.

3.       Indira Vikas Patra is bearer instrument and hence it could be en-cashed by the bearer of it also.  In case of its lost as there will be a possibility by its finder to present it for claim as its bearer there would be a justifiableness for the postal authorities to reject the said claim provided they are having such cogent material evidencing the encashment of lost Indira Vikas Patra somewhere else.  In the absence of any such cogent material taking any ordinary prudence to such a belief the conduct of the opposite parities for not bothering for the claim of the complainant remains as clear proof of their deficiency of service to the complainant who purchased the said Indira Vikas Patras for the considerable value of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/-.

4.       Further the deficient conduct of the opposite parties is remaining further clear from their in aware conduct of not bringing to the notice of other post offices as to the loss of said Indira Vikas Patras to meet any such payment in case of its presentation for encashment by others, other than the complainant especially when the complainant was diligent and prompt in bringing to the notice of the opposite parties the loss of the said Indira Vikas Patras and was also diligent in reminding his request with the opposite parties even after their maturity and seeking the refund the due amount under the same.  But the opposite parties without doing any such necessary action either to prevent any wrong payment or collecting any material as to their payment elsewhere merely refused the claim of the complainant and the said conduct shows the supine indifference of the opposite parties towards their expected services to the complainant.

5.       Hence, in the circumstances the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to make the due payment under the said Vikas Patras to the complainant after obtaining necessary Indemnity from the complainant. As the opposite parties has driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal of his grievances the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs.  Time for compliance of the order is one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 7^th day of February, 2005.

PRESIDENT

          MEMBER                                                                                MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :- Nil                                   For the opposite parties :- Nil

List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-                                                 

Ex.A1          Certificate dated 04-12-1990 issued by S.H.O. three Town Policy Station, Kurnool to the complainant.

Ex.A2          Office copy of letter dated 03-12-1990 of complainant to the Postal Superintendent, Kurnool.

Ex.A3          Office copy of letter dated 05-06-1997 of complainant to opposite party No.1.

Ex.A4          Xerox copy of Letter dated 26-08-2004 of complainant to opposite party No.2.

Ex.A5          Xerox copy of Letter dated 02-09-2004 of opposite party No.1 to the complainant.

List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-     

PRESIDENT

          MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER