BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 21 / 2000 MONDAY THE 31ST DAY JANUARY 2011. C.K. Daivasigamani, S/o. Chinna Kuttaiappa Mudaliar, Proprietor, Maha Sakthi Overseas, No.1, Third Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur 635 601. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. Chief General Post master, Second Line Beach, Chennai – 1. 2. Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur. 3. Head Postmaster, Tirupattur Town, Tirupattur. 4. C. Abdul Ghouse, Public Relation Inspector, Head Post Office, Tirupattur Town Tirupattur. 5. Vasu, Postman, Head Post Office, Tirupattur Town, Vellore District. … Opposite parties. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 12.1.2011, in the presence of Thiru.R. Lakshmi Narayanan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. G. Seralathan, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 5, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is the Proprietor (Maha Sakthi Overseas) an export company and he has registered it under the Andrah Chamber of Commerce and he has been issued a membership certificate by the said department. He has also obtained CNX code from the Reserve Bank of India in respect of his export business. He has also opened an account in the State Bank of India, Tirupattur town branch and his A/c No.01000/080312 which is a current account. He has also obtained Fax for his company and it No.04179-20624. Further he has also registered his company with the department of Telecommunication for telegram facilities under the name “WINFREE”. He has been having all these facilities from 1995 onwards. For doing his business in exports to the foreign countries he has to obtain I.E.C. No. (Import and Export Code No.) from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trades. He has applied for the said code No. on 17.10.97 for the I.E.C. Code No. and he has applied the same from the present door No.1, Third Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur Town. On 12.12.97 the 5th opposite party came to him with a registered letter from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade and represented to the complainant that the company letter is addressed to the company in respect of the present address and he has to come down to the post office and then satisfy that he is carrying on his business in the said address in writing and then take delivery of the registered letter. Accordingly the complainant went to the post office and then gave all the particulars about his business and the address and then made a requisition to the 3rd opposite party for delivery of the registered letter. The 3rd opposite party represented to him that he would ask the 4th opposite party to enquire about his address and then requested the complainant to go and approach him. But the 4th opposite party said that he will come an enquire about the place of business but he never turned up. Therefore the complainant then gave a complaint to the 2nd opposite party which also was not attended to by him. In fact the opposite parties 2 and 4 have asked the complainant about some particulars which are totally unnecessary to find out the place of the business of the complainant. In fact the complainant furnished them with particulars which are unimpeachable and from recognized Government Agencies viz., Andrah Chamber of Commerce. Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India, and Department of Telecommunication to show that his place of business is No.1 Third Lane Nethaji Road, Tirupatur Town. Infact they were not willing to take into consideration those unimpeachable documents and thus deliver the registered letter to the complainant. 2. Because of deficiency of service of the opposite parties the important letter which is the back bone of business of the complainant was not delivered to him and the complainant could not commence his business in exports of goods to foreign countries. Therefore, complainant has lost his business and he would have earned a profit of more than one lakh of rupees a month. Because of the deficiency in service of the opposite parties in not delivering the registered letter which was received by them on 12.12.97 from the Joint General Controller of foreign trade, Chennai, the complainant is put to lot of mental agony and he has to close down his business. The complainant prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for the loss of business sustained by the complainant due to non-delivery of the registered letter and due to that he has closed his business and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony and physical torture suffered by the complainant and Rs.2500/- being the cost of this compliant. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite parties are as follows: The opposite parties does not admit any of the averments contained in the complaint, save those that are specifically admitted hereunder and the complainant is put to strict proof of them all. The complaint is not maintainable as per Sec.6 of the Indian Post Offices Act and on that score alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant claiming to be the proprietor of Mahasakthi Overseas Exports and Imports at Door No.1, III Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur 635 601 in his letter dt. 19.12.97 addressed to the Postmaster, Tirupattur Head Post office, has lodged a complaint against the Public Relations Inspector (Postal) Tirupattur Head Post Office that he has misbehaved with him on 15.12.97 while contacting him in connection with verification of non-delivery of registered letter addressed to Mahasakthi Overseas Exports & Imports. A report of the Public Relations Inspector (Postal) was called for on 22.12.97. In this report he stated that he visited door No.1, III Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur-1 at about 17.00 hours on 15.12.97 and found that there was no business house or shop or merchants in the given address. He has also enquired at door Nos.3 and 4 and the residents informed that there was no business house at door No.1 and an old man by name C.K.Deivasigamani was residing alone. In the letter given by the complainant, 3 phone Nos.viz 22132, 22193 and 20824 were mentioned and also it was mentioned cable : “winfree’. But the phone No.TPT 22132 belonged to Shri Haji Abdul Rasheeth, 9, Devangar Street, Tirupattur-1 and telephone No.22193 belonged to Shafi Ahamed, 129, Chinnakadai Street, Tirupattur-1. As regards Tel. abbreviated address the Junior Telecom Officer, Central Telegraph office, Tirupattur intimated that there was no Tel. address registered as ‘winfree’ in Telegraph office, Tirupattur. Therefore, a letter was sent to the complainant requesting him to produce the following information and documents to substantiate his claim. 1. R.C. in original or Xerox copy issued by the DCTO Tirupattur, 2. Licence from the Minicipal authorities for running the business. 3. Telephone bills original or Xerox copy for the telephone Nos. 22132, 22193 and 20824 since these numbers were shown in the letter given by the complainant. 4. Rent agreement original or Xerox copy between the landlord and the Proprietor of Mahasakthi overseas. 5. Copy of license obtained from Forest Department authorized by dealing forestry spices seeds 6. Provisions of sign board as Mahasakthi Overseas in the given address since no sign board was in existence. 7. Any other documents in support of his claim and also his business such as cash bills, delivery notes etc. The complainant has supplied a purchase bill in the name of M.K. Jayachandran, Jaggary Merchant, No.1 Nethaji Road, III Lane, Tirupattur-1 which business was reported to have been closed by M.K. Jayachandran long before and also vacated the house. The Public Relations Inspector (Postal) further stated that the complainant was not doing any business and the business concern Mahasakthi Overseas did not exist. The concerned beat Postman Shri. T.K. Vasudevan also deposed in his statement dt.10.1.98 that no such business firm as Mahasakthi Overseas exists in the address given by the complainant viz. door No.1, III Lance, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur-1. 4. Hence this opposite party intimated to complainant in letter No.CR/F2/H-52/97 dt.16.6.98 as per the Rules of the Department “a registered letter addressed to a firm will be delivered only after verification into the genuiness of the firm and as such when the Public Relations Inspector is visiting the complainant for verification about the firm the required information might be furnished to substantiate his claim. The Public Relations Inspector in his letter dt. 5.10.98 intimated that whenever he visited the house, it was found locked. The beat Post Man also intimated that the house was found locked. No sign board was fixed in the address to establish that a firm was being run in the said address which is a very basic thing for running a firm. The complainant was also informed to attend Tirupattur Head Post Office on 4.12.98 at 4.30 p.m for an enquiry and to produce the records available with him to substantiate his claim. But the complainant failed to attend the enquiry. Hence the complainant was informed by letter dt.5.1.99 that since there was no firm in the name of mahasakthi Overseas in the given address, his request to deliver the registered article could not be acceded to. The registered letter could not be delivered to the complainant since there was no firm in existence at the given address. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant also failed to satisfy the Department that he was the proprietor of the said firm and hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation at the hands of the opposite parties. It is therefore prayed that pleased to dismiss the complaint with compensatory U/s 26 of the C.P.Act. 4. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 5. Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 Series (File) was marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 6. POINT NO. (a): The complainant contended that on 12.12.97 the 5th opposite party came to the complainant with the registered letter from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade and represented to the complainant that the company letter is addressed to the company in respect of the present address and he has to come down to the post office and then satisfy that he is carrying on his business in the said address in writing and then take delivery of the registered letter. Accordingly the complainant went to the post office and then gave all the particulars about his business and the address and then made a requisition to the 3rd opposite party for delivery of the registered letter. The 3rd opposite party represented to him that he would ask the 4th opposite party to enquire about his address and then requested the complainant to approach him. But the 4th opposite party said that he will come an enquire about his place of business but he never turned up. Therefore the complainant then gave a complaint to the 2nd opposite party. Because of deficiency of service of the opposite parties the important letter which is the back bone of business of the complainant was not delivered to him and the complainant could not commence his business in exports of goods to foreign countries. Therefore the complainant has lost his business and he would have earned a profit of more than one lakh of rupees a month. Because of the deficiency in service of the opposite parties in not delivering the registered letter which was received by them on 12.12.97 from the Joint General Controller of foreign trade, Chennai, the complainant is put to lot of mental agony and loss. 7. The opposite parties contended that the complainant has lodged a complaint against the Public Relations Inspector (Postal) Tirupattur Head Post Office in connection with the non-delivery of registered letter addressed to Mahasakthi Overseas Exports & Imports. The opposite party No.2 was received a report dt.27.12.97 from the Public Relations Inspector. In its report he has intimated that he had visiting door No.1, III Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur-1 at about 17.00 hours on 15.12.97 and found that there was no business house or shop or merchants in the given address. He has also enquired at door Nos. 3 & 4 and the residents informed that there was no business house at door No.1 and an old man by name C.K. Daivasigamani was residing alone. Further stated that in the letter given by the complainant 3 phone Nos. Viz. 22132, 22193 and 20824 were mentioned, but the phone No.TPT 22132 belonged to Shri Haji Abdul Rasheeth 9, Devangar Street, Tirupattur-1 and telephone No.22193 belonged to Shafi Ahamed 129, Chinnakadai Street, Tirupattur-1. Therefore, the letter was sent to the complainant requesting him to produce the information and documents about the business firm Mahasakthi Overseas No1, III, Lane, Nethaji Road, Thirupattur-1. But the complainant has supplied a purchase bill in the name of M.K.Jayachandran, Jaggary Merchant No.1, Nethaji Road, III Lane, Tirupattur-1. Finally the Public Relations Inspector concluded that the complainant was not doing any business and the business concern Mahasakthi Overseas did not exist. Therefore the registered letter could not be delivered to the complainant since there was no firm in existence at the given address. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 8. From the perusal of Ex.A1, Membership Certificate issued from the Andhra Chamber of Commerce, it is mentioned that Mahasakthi Overseas, Tirupattur, North Arcot District, Tamil Nadu have been elected Andhra Chamber of Commerce, from 29.3.1996. The concession certificate Ex.A2, dt. 4.11.1997, issued by the Orthopaedically Handicapped Paraplegic Persons / Patients, it is mentioned the complainant address that No.1, 3rd Lane Nethaji Road, Thirupattur. The Application Form for allotment of importer exporter code number Ex.A3 it is mentioned that Mahasakthi Overseas Proprietor C.K. Daivassigamani, Door No.1, 3rd Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur. But in Ex.A4, dt. 14.9.95 Application for allotment of code number, and in Ex.A5, dt. 22.8.96, letter from Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India, Ltd., it is mentioned that M/s. Mahasakthi Overseas, No.9, Devanagar Street, Tirupattur. From perusal of a letter dt. 3.9.97 available in the Ex.B1 serious it is seen that the complainant Thiru.C.K. Daivasigamani intimated to the Head Post Master, Tiruppattur, Vellore District that Mahasakthi Overseas Firm shifted from No.9, Devangar Street, Tiruppattur, to Door No.1, 3rd Lane, Nethaji Road, Tiruppattur and deliver the all letters from 2.9.1997 in the above said address. Therefore it is clear that, till 2.9.1997 the alleged M/s. Mahasakthi Overseas Exports & Imports firms was running in the above said address i.e No.9, Devanagar Street, Tirupathur and therefore it was shifted to new place. 9. The complainant had sent a letter dt.19.12.97 addressed to the Postmaster, Tirupattur Head Post Office, stated that the Public Relations Inspector (Postal) Tirupattur Head Post Office has misbehaved with him on 15.12.97 while contacting him in connection with verification of inspection for non delivery of registered letter addressed to Mahasakthi Overseas Exports & Imports. From the perusal of Ex.B1 file it is seen that based on a complaint given by the complainant a report of the Public Relations Inspector i.e. opposite party-4 was called for , accordingly the Public Relations Inspector (Postal) has submitted a report Ex.B1 file. In its report he stated that he had visited Door No.1, 3rd Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur-1 at about 17.00 hours on 15.12.97 and found that there was no business house or shop or merchants in the given address. He has also enquired at door Nos.3 & 4 and the residents informed that there was no business at door No.1 and an old man by name C.K. Daivasigamani was residing alone. Further he stated that under the instructions of Postmaster, Tirupattur a letter was sent to the complainant requesting him to produce the documents relating to Mahasakthi Overseas No.1, 3rd Land, Nethaji Road, Tiruppatur. The complainant was also informed to attend Tirupattur Head Post Office on 4.12.98 at 4.30 p.m for an enquiry and to produce the records available with him to substantiate his claim. But the complainant failed to attend the enquiry. Therefore registered letter could not be delivered to the complainant since there was no firm in existence at the given address. Based on the report of the Public Relations Inspector (Postal) Tirupattur, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur has sent a letter dt. 5.1.99 to the complainant stating that Enquiries made reveals that there is no firm in the name of Mahasakthi Overseas Exports and Imports at No.1, III Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur, therefore, the complainant application for delivery of registered letters addressed to the above firm is not acceded to. 10. The complainant has sent a letter Ex.A9, dt. 21.1.98 and Ex.A10, dt. 2.4.98 to the Chief General Postmaster, Chennai and Superintendent of Post offices, Tirupatthur Division, Tirupattur for non delivery of the registered letter addressed to Mahasakthi Overseas Exports & Imports. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur has sent a reply letter dt. 15.6.98 to the complainant Thiru. C.K. Daivasigamani, Mahasakthi Overseas, Exports & Imports, No.9, Devangar Street, Tirupattur request the complainant to furnish the required information about the genuineness of the addressee such as profession etc. But the complainant has not furnished the documents relating the Mahasakthi Overseas Exports & Imports No.1, 3rd Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur. From the perusal of Ex.B1 series file it is seen that the Public Relation Inspector (Postal ) Tirupattur has submitted a detailed report about the complaint made by the complainant in connection with the non-delivery of registered letter form Joint Director General on 21.12.98. In the above said report the Public Relations Inspector (Postal) Tirupattur, has concluded that Thiru. C.K. Daivasigamani (Complainant) has produced a cash bill with the address of M.K. Jayachandran, Jaggary Merchant, No.1, III Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur and the registered letter could not be delivered to the complainant since there was no firm or business shop in existence at the above address. Based on the above said report the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur has sent a letter dt. 5.1.99 to the complainant stating that enquiries made reveals that there is no firm in the name of Mahasakthi Overseas Exports and Imports, at No.1, III, Lane, Nethaji Road, Tirupattur and therefore his application for non-delivery of registered letters addressed to the above firm is not acceded to. The complainant also failed to appear before the enquiry and produce the records available with him to substantiate his claim on 4.12.98 at 4.30 p.m. before the Head Post Office, Tirupattur. Therefore, it is clear that after received the complainant for non-delivery of registered letter, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have called a report from the Public Relations Inspector (4th opposite party). The 4th opposite party had visited Door No.1, 3rd lane Nethaji Road, Tirupattur and enquired the alleged business firm and submitted a detailed report Ex.B1 file to the 2nd opposite party. In its report he concluded that there was no firm in the name of “Mahasakthi Overseas” at No.1, 3rd Lane, Nethaji Road, Thirupattur. The complainant also failed to satisfy the Department that he was the Proprietor of the said firm in the given address. Therefore the contention of the complainant that because of the deficiency in service of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered business loss is not acceptable. 11. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A15 and Ex.B1 series, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 12. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 13. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 31st day of January 2011. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 29.3.96 – X-copy of Membership Certificate issued by Andhra Chamber of Commerce Madras. Ex.A2- 4.11.97 - X-copy of Concession Certificate. Ex.A3- -- - X-copy of Application for allotment to complainant. Ex.A4- 14.9.95 - X-copy of Application for allotment of code to Mahasakthi Overseas. Ex.A5- 22.8.96 - X-copy of letter issued by Export credit Co Ltd to complainant. Ex.A6- 4.11.97 - X-copy of letter by Andhra Chamber of commerce to complainant. Ex.A7-16.12.97 - X-copy of letter issued by Post master, Tirupatur to complainant. Ex.A8- 19.12.97 – X-copy of reply to the complainant. Ex.A9- 21.1.98 - X-copy of letter by complainant to Chief General Post master, Chennai. Ex.A10-2.4.98 - X-copy of letter written by complainant to Chief General Postmaster, Chennai. Ex.A11- 15.6.98- X-copy of letter issued by Supt. Post office, Tirupattur to complainant. Ex.A12- 26.6.98- X-copy of letter issued by complainant to Senior Supt of Post Office, Tirupathur. Ex.A13- 14.11.98 – X-copy of letter by complainant to P.R.I. Postal, Tirupathur. Ex.A14- 1.12.98 - X-copy of letter issued by complainant to P.R.I. Potal Tirupathur. Ex.A15- 10.7.99 - X-copy of letter by Andhra Chamber of Commerce, Chennai. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1 series - - X-copy of Alleged non-delivery of Re addressed to File Mahasakthi Exports and Imports, Tirupathur. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | |
