BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Wednesday the 6th day of August, 2008
C.C.No. 02/08
Between:
A. Uma Devi, W/o. Y. Raghurami Reddy,Assistant Government Pleader/Advocate,
H.No45-24-K-19-2, Sri Krishna Colony, Ashok Nagar, Kurnool
..Complainant
Versus
1. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kurnool.
2. Head Post Master,
Head Post Office, Kurnool
Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. Y. Sreenivasulu, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.2/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on opposite party to pay Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation with 18% interest, Rs.20,000/- for mental agony , Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint and any other relief or relief’s which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant applied for the post of District and Session Judge in A.P. State Higher State Judicial service and sent her application through speed post on 28-4-2007 at 11.16 a.m from opposite party No.2 and paid Rs.29/- towards speed post charges and the said cover has to reach the addressee within 24 hours as per the prescribed time and the posted cover was not delivered even on Monday i.e., 30-4-2007 at the destination i.e, Hyderabad and the cover was delivered on 1-5-2007 at Hyderabad and the same was returned by concerned authorities as said application was not received within time . The cover was not delivered to the addressee in time due to gross negligence of opposite party , thus the complainant sustained loss of her employment particulars which caused mental agony . Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant for mental agony as there is deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in not properly done their services, as the application did not reached the concerned authorities in time. The complainant on 15-6-2007 got issued legal notice to the opposite parties and the opposite parties formally replied. The above lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to seek redressal in the forum.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) speed post returned cover, (2) office copy of legal notice dated 15-6-2007 , (3) letter of of Post Office , Kurnool dated 19-6-2007 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case. The opposite party No.1 filed written version and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1 .
5. The written version of opposite parties submits that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, but admits that there is no delay or deficiency of service rendered by opposite parties and the opposite parties are not responsible for the alleged deficiency in service . The complainant gave a legal notice dated 15-6-2007 and no relevant particulars like address particulars and documents like copy of speed post ,receipt etc were enclosed to the said notice , as such the opposite parties were not in a position to ascertaining about the said complaint of the complainant and immediately the opposite parties sent a reply dated 19-6-2007 requesting the complainant to furnish the above said particulars to speed up the case. The complainant even though received the said letter did not choose to furnish the necessary particulars but filed this complaint in the forum after a lapse of one year with false allegations to harassment them. The subsequent investigation in the above material revealed that the speed post article was dispatched from the opposite party No.2 office immediately to the destination by forwarding the same to RMS who inturn forwarded the speed post to their respective destinations by rail. As such there is no negligence or deficiency in service rendered by opposite parties . The complainant in this case claimed a quantum of compensation of Rs.3 lakhs or 5 lakhs which is baseless, excessive and ill motivated even other wise as per the provisions of Indian Post Offices (5th amendment) Rules 1995 framed by the Central Government, in case of delay beyond the norms the compensation amount that would be payable is “twice the composite speed post charge” as such the complainant would be entitled to only double the amount spent by her for sending the article through speed post and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documentviz., (1) attested copy of circular No.1-3/93 CI (pt) dated 12-12-1995, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service ?.
9. It is the case of the complainant that she sent an application for the post of District & Sessions Judge in A.P.Judicial Service on 28-4-2007 at 11.16 Am by paying Rs.29/- towards speed post charges through opposite party No.2, Head post office and the said cover has to reach Hyderabad by Monday i.e, 30-4-2007, but it was delivered on 1-5-2007 to addressee and it was returned by concerned authorities as application not received within time. While such is so with the complainant, the opposite parties in their written version averments submits that the opposite parties are not responsible for the alleged non delivery of the cover or deficiency in service and denied their liability to reimburse the complainant on the plea that under the relevant law laid down under the Indian Post Office (5th Amendment) Rule 1995 therein the amount that would be payable is ‘Twice the composite speed post charge”.
10. The counsel for complainant strongly contended that the speed post cover was posted on 28-4-2007 and it was served on the addressee on 1-5-2007, the reason for posting a cover under the speed post is to reach the destiny within 24 hours or at least 48 hours if any Sunday or strike or bandh come in between and the defaults between 28-4-2007 to 1-5-2007 has not been reasonablely explained by the opposite parties in their written averments and such negligent act of employees of opposite parties cannot attract the protection extended under the rules of Indian Post Office Act. The counsel for complainant cited the case of Head Post Office (post master) and Anr Vs. Basanta ‘ Sahoo reported in IV (2005) CPJ Pg.551, where in the delivery of the registered letter was delayed and no explanation for the delay had been given by the opposite parties there in. The complainant therein could not get admission in post graduation. deficiency in service proved and shelter under the provision of S-6 of Indian Post Office Act was held not available. The appellants therein was held liable to pay compensation. Similar view was taken in another by the State Commission of J & K in the case of Amit Verma Vs Superintendent of Post Offices and Anr reported in III 2008 CPJ Pg.61. Wherein also it has been held that protection given under S-6 of Indian Post Office Act is not available and the postal department is liable to pay compensation.
11. In the instant case the delay has not been explained. Rather it is proved that it has occurred due to the negligent conduct of the concerned employees of opposite parties. There is no explanation given as to why the cover in question was not served on the addressee within 24 hours or 48 hours. Hence, it is a fault and imperfection in the hired services and amounts to deficiency of service as defined under section head of S-2 of C.P.Act, 1986.
12. To sum up the discussion made above and relying on the decision supra , on the facts it has been established that there is delay in serving the said speed post cover in question and the delay has not been explained, the opposite parties in their written version stated that they have forwarded the cover to the RMS who in turn forwards towards their respective destination by rail. Hence no deficiency on their part. The payment of Rs.29/- by the complainant in the office of opposite party No.2 for transmission of the cover to its addresses. , it can by all means of imagination be deemed as a price for hiring the service of speed post for the delivery of the cover in question. Hence, for non delivery of speed post in time cover is certainly amounting to deficiency of service by opposite parties to the complainant, for which the opposite parties has to Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards cost.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- towards costs, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay the supra award with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 6th day of August, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Speed post returned cover.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dated 15-6-2007.
Ex.A3. Letter of Superintendent of Post Office, Kurnool , dated
19-6-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested copy of circular No.1-3/93-CI (pt) dated 12-12-1995 as to the Liability of delivery speed post articles along with Gazette notification.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite party.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
