BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ATVISAKHAPATNAM.

FA.NO.877 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.926 OF 2005 District Visakhapatnam.

Between:

1. The Postmaster, RSHO, Visakhapatnam-004.

2. Sr.Superintendent of Post Offices,

3. Director, Postal Services

   Visakhapatnam    Visakhapatnam.                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Chukka Appa Rao, Advocate,

S/o.Sri late Polinaidu,

D.No.49-2-65, Sai Sarvan

Residency, Flat No.S-2,

Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam-530 016.                            

Counsel for the Appellants                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Counsel for the Respondent:   

QUORUM:THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

***

Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.926/2005 on the file of District Forum-I,Visakhapatnam, Opposite parties preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant’s son was doing his M.Sc. in United Kingdom, State Bank of India, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam and he was sanctioned an Educational loan. stst12-4-200515-4-2005, the complainant booked ‘two addressee telegrams” to 1^stnd 25-4-2005, the complainant booked two separate phonograms to opposite parties 3 and 4 requesting for immediate delivery but opposite parties were negligent and did not take any action.     17-5-2005London  

Opposite party No.2 filed counter which was adopted by opposite parties 1, 3 and 4.  28-3-2005 15-4-2005, enquiries were made and the enquiries revealed that the said registered letter was dispatched toUnited Kingdom1-4-2005 11-5-2005. The registered leter was consigned by Air Mail Sorting Division, Chennai on 1-4-2005 to the destination country and that there is no information from the international mail record-London and submitted that there is no deficiency in service in dispatching the letter from Visakhapatnam to United Kingdom so as to pay damages or value of article lost in that country.   

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A34 and B1 to B3 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.35,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties preferred this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per Article 34 of Prot Article-XIX, the postal authorities of United Kingdom of Great Britan has a right not to pay compensation for uninsured registered letters.    1-4-2005

The facts not in dispute are that the complainant sent a registered letter from one of the Post Office of the second opposite party for serving on the complainant’s son who was studying inUnited Kingdom. 28-3-200512-4-2005    17-5-2005London   28-3-200512-5-200515-4-2005there was no information. 

The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of the National Commission reported inI (2000) CPJ 28 (NC)in which the National Commission held that the postal authorities are exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage. 

The National Commission in a judgement reported in Landmark Judgements on Consumer Protection it was held that:

‘We have to see from a consumer point of view as to what is

willful or default when interpreting a particular provision. telegraphic money order was menat for his son, who was studying

at a far of place and no circumstances has been brought

on record by the postal authorities to show that there

has not been any willful or default on the part of any of

its officers’. 

The facts in the instant case are similar in the sense that here also a father had sent a D.D. to his son in United Kingdom for an amount of Rs.1,99,053/- to pay for his son’s education and the non receipt of that by the son, on time, led to lot of mental agony. 

Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum with respect to its finding about the deficiency of service of the appellant/opposite parties. 

In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified by reducing the compensation to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.35,000/- while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.