PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

1)        By this complaint the Complainant has prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs.267/- on account of the refund of postage charges paid by the Complainant on Three Speed Post Articles. It is also prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment caused to the Complainant due to deficient service provided by it and cost of Rs.5,000/- towards this complaint.

2)        According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party guarantees a time bound delivery of Speed Post Articles (in short SPA).  It is submitted that the Opposite Party claims that it undertakes to refund the postage charges collected from the customer in case of any delay in delivery.  The norms of delivery of SPA from Mumbai to New Delhi is “D+1” i.e. “D” means “The day of booking”.  The Complainant relied the information provided about it by the Opposite Party’s website and reply given to him under RTI Act, the copies of the said documents are marked as Exh.‘1’ colly & ‘2’.  According to the Complainant on 24/08/2010 he had booked three SPA with proof of delivery addressed to three recipients in New Delhi through the Opposite Party’s office of GPO, Mumbai and he had paid Rs.89/- for each article amounting to total of Rs.267/-. The copies of the postal slips which were affixed on the letters dtd.24/08/2010 addressed by the Complainant of three recipients in New Delhi are marked as Exh.‘3’ colly.

3)        According to the Complainant, the letter addressed to Advocate H.S. Dahiya was without any Pin Code number.  It is submitted that when the Complainant tendered three envelops at the service counter of GPO on 24/08/2010 the attending person himself entered the Pin Code number as “110001” and therefore, the postal receipt shows the Pin Code number as “110001’.  It is alleged that as per the delivery norms the aforesaid three articles mentioned in Exh.‘3’ colly. ought to have been delivered on 25/08/2010, however, the same were delivered late.  The copies of AD slips of the said three SPA’s are marked as Exh.‘4’. The Complainant has also produced the track reports of the said three SPA’s on the website of the Opposite Party and found out the complete movement details of the said articles from GPO Mumbai to their destinations in New Delhi.  The copies of the said three tracked reports are marked as Exh.‘5’ colly.  According to the Complainant, the delivery of the all the three SPA’s were made beyond the Opposite Parties delivery norms.  The Opposite Party therefore, should have refunded the postage paid on all the said three SPA’s.  The Complainant therefore, wrote letter to the Opposite Party dtd.13/09/2010 and requested to refund the postage charges of Rs.267/-.  The copy of the said letter is marked as Exh.‘6’. The Opposite Party by letter dtd.07/10/2010 claimed that the article EM104187621 was delivered correctly on 26/08/2010 as per delivery norms and thus, refused to refund the postage thereon.  The copy of the said reply is marked as Exh.‘7’colly. It is submitted that as regards the Article EM104187737, the Opposite Party by letter dtd.19/10/2010 informed the Complainant that it was delivered late because the Complainant had mentioned incorrect Pin Code number and refused to refund the postage thereon. The copy of the reply received by the Complainant  is marked as Exh.‘8’ colly.  It is further submitted that by letter dtd.20/10/2010 as regards Article 104187856, the Opposite Party claimed that on the said article the Complainant had mentioned incorrect Pin Code number and refused to refund postage thereon. The copies of the said correspondence are at Exh.‘9’ colly.  It is submitted that the justification given by the Opposite Party behind late delivery of three SPA’s is untenable.  It is alleged that the delay was caused due to incurred Pin Code Numbers to own fault and deficiency of the Opposite Party.  It is submitted that due to the late delivery of all those articles which were legal correspondence the Complainant had to face embarrassment.  The Complainant has thus, prayed for the reliefs mentioned in para 1 of this order.

 4)        The Opposite Party contested the complaint by filing written statement-cum-affidavit.  It is contended that the Complainant had booked the three SPA after cut off time of 13 hrs. i.e. in between 7.42 to 7.44 hrs.  The Complainant failed to right correct Pin Code number on SPA due to which the articles were moving/tossing form one post office to another post office in New Delhi and therefore the delay in delivery of these articles was occurred.  It submitted that it was fault of the Complainant only.  The Opposite Party by their letters intimated to the Complainant that due to wrong Pin Code written by him on SPA’s the said articles were delayed.  It is contended that thereafter the Complainant has not made any correspondence and as such it is presumed that the Complainant has admitted his mistakes.  It is further contended that the Opposite Party has not denied or refused to refund of Speed Post charges, however, it is contended that the Complainant was silent to two years and not approached to the Opposite Party or has not made any correspondence and not demanded refund etc.  It is submitted that after laps of two years the Complainant has filed this complaint. It is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and only because the Complainant had written wrong Pin Code number of the addressee on all SPA’s send by him on 24/08/2010 there was delay in delivery of those articles.  In the present case there is no any service fault on the part of the Opposite Party.  It is denied that the Complainant was not aware of the Pin Code number of the address and that the counter person attending to the Complainant entered the Pin Code number ‘110001’ is not acceptable to the Opposite Party.  It is contended that in every Post Office there is facility of Pin Code Directory as it was introduced prior to 26 years.  It is submitted in view of the provisions of Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Opposite Party is not liable for misdelivery, delay or damage unless the same has caused fraudulently or by the willful act or default.  It is thus, contended that no claim will lie against the Opposite Party.  It is submitted that the Opposite Party cannot be equated with the common carrier.  Lastly it is submitted that the letter dtd.07/10/2010, 19/10/2010, 20/10/2010 issued by the Opposite Party are not the decisions for not refunding the postage amount and it was only intimated that due to wrong Pin Code number the articles were delayed and after that the Complainant had not made any correspondence.  It is also contended that the complaint is time barred and devoid of any merits.  The complaint therefore, deserves to be dismissed with cost.

5)        The Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence, counter affidavit of evidence and additional affidavit of evidence.  The Opposite Party has filed affidavit of B.O. Jagtap, Dy. Director (BD).  Both the parties filed written argument.  We heard the Complainant in person and Shri. Eeshan Sahastrabudhe, Ld.Advocate on behalf of Ld. Adv.Vinod Joshi, for the Opposite Party.  We have perused the documents filed by both sides.

6)        Considering the rival contentions of the parties first of all it is necessary to be seen that the objection raised by the Opposite Party that the complaint is barred by time is whether legal and proper.  Complaint is filed before this Forum on 09/10/2012.  The replies given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant’s letter have been received by the Complainant by post on 11/10/2010, 21/10/2010 & 23/10/210 as per Exh.7, 8 & 9 colly where under the claim of refund made by the Complainant is not admitted by the Opposite Party.  Thus, the said objection raised by the Opposite Party cannot be accepted.  In our view the cause of action for this complaint arose first time after 11/10/2010 as stated above and the complaint is filed within 2 years from it.  We therefore, hold that the said objection raised by the Opposite Party is devoid of merits.

7)        The Opposite Party in their written statement has specifically contended that the Opposite Party has not denied or refused to refund the Speed Post charges.  Thus, in our view the case made out by the Complainant that he is entitled for refund of Speed Post charges is proved by the Complainant.  The Opposite Party has however, come out with the case that the SPA’s were booked after cut off time of 13 hrs. and not mentioning the correct Pin Code Number by the Complainant on the articles sent to the addressee thus, the delay in delivery was caused and therefore, the Opposite Party is not liable to refund postage charges. It is also contended that there is no fault in service on the part of the Opposite Party as well as no deficiency in service and therefore, the claim made by the Complainant is liable to be rejected.  From the tracking reports placed on record it appears that the articles first reached New Delhi not on the next day i.e. 25/8/2010, but day after that i.e. 26/08/2010. The case therefore, made out by the Opposite Party that SPA number EM104187621 IN was correctly delivered on 26/08/2010 cannot be accepted as it was not delivered within time limit as per the delivery norms of Opposite Party i.e. D +1 i.e. on 25/08/2010.  The other articles were delivered on 30/08/2010 and 27/08/2010 which were delivered to the addressee not within the stipulated time.  The case made out by the Opposite Party that as the Complainant had booked SPA’s after cut off time and the said articles were not having proper Pin Code Numbers and therefore, the same will not delivered in time also cannot be accepted as in Exh.1 to the complaint as per the information given by the Dy. Director – PRO & CPIO, Mumbai to the Complainant the norms for time limit for Delhi is D+1 (D= day of booking) is mentioned. In Exh.2 it is mentioned that Speed Post offers money back guarantee under which Speed Post Fees will be refunded if the consignment is not delivered within the published delivery norms. The contention raised by the Opposite Party regarding cut off time and not mentioning the correct Pin Code Numbers on the Speed Post Articles also cannot be accepted as there is no such mention in Exh.1 to the complaint i.e. RTI reply given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.  We therefore, hold that the Complainant has proved that the SPA’s which he had sent to New Delhi for delivery to the addressee were not delivered to them within the prescribed time for the delivery of it.  The authorities relied by the Opposite Party in the case of Sr. Superintendent of Post Office V/s. Dharamveer Harijan (Revision Petition No.4567/2012, decided on 11/09/2013) and Union of India V/s. Mohd. Nazim reported in 1979 (10) CPSC 428  in our view are not applicable to the facts of this case as the Opposite Party vide Exh.2 to the complaint had agreed and guaranteed to refund the charges, if the Speed Post articles are not delivered in time.  We therefore, hold that as the Opposite Party has already guaranteed refund for such delay and Opposite Party has granted refunds in several cases that too in Complainants own case keeping in tune with the said promise, the Opposite Party cannot take shelter under Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act.  Furthermore, the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Head Post Master V/s. Neeraj Jupta (Revision Petition No.564/2012 decided on 21/05/2013 and Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices V/s. Mahaveer Prasad (Revision Petition No.2186/2013 decided on 04/07/2013) in the similar facts as like the present case held that in such cases the Opposite Party i.e. Post Office Department is liable to refund the postal charges and compensate the Complainant for non compliance of the timely delivery of the article sent to the addressee.  We therefore, hold that in this case the Complainant has proved that the Opposite Party did not comply with the norms provided for delivery of the Speed Post Articles booked by him the Complainant is therefore in our view is entitled for refund of postage charges paid by him for three SPA’s.  In our view from the facts on record it can be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is therefore, liable to compensate the Complainant for mental agony and anxiety caused to him.  We hold that the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation for that reason to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- towards this complaint. In the result we pass the following order –

                                                                                                  O R D E R

i.      Complaint No.218/2012 is partly allowed against the Opposite Party.

           ii.      The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.267/- (Rs.Two Hundred Sixty Seven Only) as refund of the Speed Post

                   Fees of three Speed Post Articles to the Complainant.

          iii.       The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand Only) as compensation to the Complainant for mental

                    agony & anxiety caused to the Complainant and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) to the Complainants towards this

                   complaint.

        iv.       The Opposite Party is directed to comply with the aforesaid order within two months from the date of service of this order and

                  failure to comply the said order within stipulated period the Opposite Party will liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the aforesaid

                  amount i.e. Rs.4,267/- (Rs.Four Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Seven Only)till the realization of the said amount.

       v.        Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.