PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 26th day of November 2011
Filed on :23-11-2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 619/2010
Between
Elizabeth Thomas, : Complainant
Kocheril house, Kumbalangi P.O., (party-in-person)
(S), Opp. Malattu Bekery,
Kochi-682 007.
And
1. Director of Postal Service, : Opposite parties
Thiruvananthapuram.
(Noticeof O.P.1 and 5 dispensed
With)
2. Chief Post Master General,
Thiruvananthapuram. (O.P. 2 and 3 absent)
3. Post Master General,
Ernakulam Kochi-682 016.
4. Postal Superintendent, (O.P. 4 by authorized
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 011. representative)
5. Reghu,
Investigation Officer 2004,
Postal Department, Ernakulam.
6. V.K. Sasidharan (Sasi), Retd. (6th O.P. by Adv. Sajan
Postman, C/o. Post Master, Mannali, S/o. K.K.
Palluruthy Post Office, Viswanadhan Mannali,
Palluruthy P.O., Kochi-682 006. Kochi-5)
(O.P. 6 impleaded as per order in
I.A. 423/2011 dt. 28/07/2011.)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
After the marriage of the complainant in 1994 she has been residing along with her husband at Palluruthy. The mother-in-law of the complainant along with her son is residing adjacent to the house of the complainant. In 2004 the registered letter addressed to the complainant was taken delivery of by the mother-in-law. At that juncture the complainant came to know that the letters addressed to her had been delivered to her mother-in-law instead of her also happen to have the similar name as Elizabeth Allice. The complainant lodged complaints to opposite parties 1 to 4 but the same fell in deaf ears. In the mean time the 5th opposite party conducted an enquiry at the instance of the department, but there was no subsequent action. Opposite parties 1 to 5 protected the 6th opposite party from any action being taken against him in their instance till his retirement on 31-10-2010. 6th opposite party had not delivered all the ordinary, registered letters, parcels and job communication to the complainant. Though the 6th opposite party was found accountable by the vigilance department the punishment awarded was censure. The postal department is liable to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to her. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the 4th opposite party.
The beat in which the house of the complainant is located is served by the 6th opposite party. On receipt of the complaint dated 14-05-2009 enquiry had been conducted and lapses on the part of the 6th opposite party had been admitted by him. Punitive action as per departmental rules had been taken against him. This was intimated to the complainant as well. The complainant can’t claim any compensation as per Section 6 of the IPO Act 1898. The complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
3. Version of 6th opposite party.
The instance of handing over a letter addressed to the mother –in-law took place only once, and it so happened for the only reason that the complainant’s name and her mother-in-law’s name were the same, ‘Elizabeth’ and the house name are the same. As soon as the complainant pointed out the said mistake the registered letter was recalled did receive from the mother-in-law and straight away served to the complainant with due apologies. The complainant has filed this complaint only as a ruse to pressurise the postal authorities to give her an employment in the postal department. Moreover the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Since she has filed this complaint after a period of 2 years from the date of cause of action. 6th opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.
4. Notice to the opposite parties 1 and 5 was dispensed with. In spite of service of notice from this Forum opposite parties 2 and 3 did not respond to for their own reasons. Complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 to A10 were marked on her side. No oral evidence was adduced by opposite parties 4 and 6. Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on the part of 4th opposite party. Ext. X1 also was marked. Heard the complainant who appeared in person, the authorized representative of the 4th opposite party and the counsel for the 6th opposite party.
5. The points that arose for consideration are
i. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs from the opposite parties?
6. Point No. i. The 6th opposite party raises the question of limitation. According to the 6th opposite party the complaint ought to have filed this complaint within 2 years from the date of cause of action wherein she failed. The reasons not explained therefore. No petition for condonation of delay either has been filed. As per Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act complaint should have been filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action which was not done. This Forum is only to dismiss the complaint on account of the same. Ordered accordingly. Since the primary point is found against the complainant we are not needed to go further to the other reliefs sought for.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of November 2011.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 1-10-2009
A2 : Photo copy of on I.G.S cover
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 11/10/2010
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 15-10-2004
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 09-12-2004
A6 : Copy of letter dt. 22-11-2004
A7 : Copy of letter dt. 30-11-2004
A8 : Copy of postal receipt
A9 : Copy of letter dt. 01/06/2010
A10 : Copy of front page of the registered
cover.
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Copy of letter dt. 14-10-2009
B2 : Copy of letter dt. 06-01-2010
B3 : Copy of S.5 of Indian Post Office
Act.
X1 : Copy of enquiry report
Depositions:
PW1 : Elizabeth Thomas
