DATE OF FILING : 26.4.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  27th  day of  April, 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.140/2016

Between

Complainant       :   Arun John,

Punnanthanathu House,

Pazhayarikkandam P.O.,    

Idukki.

(By Adv:  P.M. Johny)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  Geetha Mailadumparayail,

       Mailappuzha, 

       Pazhayarikkandam, Idukki.

       (Former Temporary Postgirl,

         Pazhayarikkandam)

      (By Adv:  Shiji Joseph)

  2. Francis Pulinthanam,

      Temporary Post Master,

      Pa zhayarikkandam, Idukki.

3.  The Superintendent of Po's,

      Idukki Division, 

      Thodupuzha, Idukki.

4.  The SDI of Po's

      Kattappana Sub Division,

      Kattappana, Idukki.

5.  M.G. University,

     Kottayam.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant was a BA degree holder of Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam.  In the month of October, 2015, complainant applied for his degree certificate along with mark list to the university.  But when it was not given to him, he enquired the mater directly to the university and found that the certificate was despatched from the university in his address by registered post 

(cont......2)

-  2  -

on 30.10.2015, vide RL No.665083990IN.  But till the time of the complaint, documents are not delivered to him.  On enquiry to his post office, at Pazhayarikandam, he came to know that, the registered letter addressed to him was entrusted to the temporary postal woman Geetha, who is servicing in this area. Thereafter the complainant approached the postal woman and enquired the matter, at that time, she replied that she delivered it to some one but she is not remembering.

 

After this, the complainant lodged a petition before the Postal Superintendent, Kattappan and Postal Inspector, Idukki.  Resultant to it, the mail overseer attached to the Kattappana Postal Inspector office, enquired the matter and recorded the statement of the complainant.  But till date the postal authorities has not taken any steps to find out the original certificate.

 

Complainant further stated that, some days before the postal authorities conducted a search in the house of the 1st opposite party, postal woman and ceased more postal articles such as certificates, RC books  etc. from her custody.  Complainant further averred that complainant is permanently residing within one kilometre from the postal office.  Due to the non-delivery of the certificate, the complainant faced much hardships and he cannot proceeded his future studies.  This caused much mental agony and hardships to the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, complainant filed this petition for allowing the relief such as to direct the opposite parties to find out the original degree certificate and 6th semester mark list and also direct them to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation and Rs.8000/- as litigation cost.

 

On notice, 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In her version, 1st opposite party contended that, she delivered the certificate on 4.11.2015, to the father of the complainant as per the direction of the complainant, which was delivered to him at the Milma society, Pazhayarikandam.  On receipt of the registered article from the post office, 1st opposite party conducted enquiry about the address to the local auto drivers and the auto driver intimated the matter to the father of the complainant.  On getting information about the registered postal article, the complainant's father approached opposite party at Pazhayarikandam Milma Society where she was working as part time basis and received the postal article from her.  Fact being so, other allegations against her are false and baseless.  She further contended that, her husband was deserted her and she is living with her children in a piece of land having only 1.5 cents and working on temporary basis in the society and

    (cont......3)

-  3  -

postal office, for meeting the both ends.  As a postal woman, her service area is more than 15 km around the postal office and the complainant who is residing 5 km away from the post office, in Makkuvally.  In an isolated area, where there is no constable way, the only way which passes through heavy forest, having wild animals.  At the time of receipt of the registered article, the complainant was not in station and he was at Ernakulam and immediately the 1st opposite party intimated the matter to the complainant's house through an auto driver.  On the next day itself, the father of the complainant received the article from the complainant.  Thereafter the 1st opposite party came to know that, the complainant and his father are in enimical terms  and   the complainant filed this complaint against the 1st opposite party only to cause irreparable loss and hardships to her.

 

Opposite parties 3 and 4, in their version, specifically contended that a postal article until its delivery is the property of the sender.  Only after receiving the article, the addressee can claim that he had availed the service of the postal department.  After receiving the article and if found any delay, there was any loss or damage to the contents inside.  One can claim that there was a deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant states that he has not received any article till date and hence he has not availed any service from the department of posts and as such he is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and hence no locus standi to file this complaint.

 

On receipt of the complaint regarding this matter at customer care centre at the office of the 3rd opposite party, the case was enquired by the Inspector of posts, Kattappana.  Enquiries conducted by the 4th opposite party revealed that, the postal woman 1st opposite party was engaged as outsider in the said post.  Due to her inexperience about the delivery, area, she could not find out the complainant's residence at the first instance.  On knowing about the arrival of letter from some local auto drivers, complainant's father approached 1st opposite party and requested to hand over the same letter to him as the contents of the letter is urgently needed for his son.  Having received the article under complaint, the complainant has filed this complaint to get undue benefit from the  Forum.  On detecting irregularity from the part of 1st opposite party, she was disengaged from the post of GDSMD (Grameen Dak Sevak Mail Deliver).  The above facts were intimated to the complainant, stating compensation for loss of registered article is Rs.100/- and will be granted to the sender or on his request to the addressee solely  as an act of grace and not in consequence of any legal liability.  The complainant neither claimed the eligible compensation from the 3rd opposite party, not taken any effort to obtain duplicate certificate from

  (cont......4)

-  4  - 

the M.G. University, which is evidence from the reply version of 5th opposite party, controller of examinations.  Opposite party further contended that as per the decision  of the Hon'ble National Commission in RP No.986/1996, there is no liability at all for the loss or non-delivery of a postal article except in so far as the specifically provided by the station under section 33 and section 6 or any other regulation or rule.  From the above decision, it is clear that, the department is liable to pay compensation only if specifically mentioned in the Rules.  Opposite parties further contended that clause 170 of the Post Office Guide Part I, mention about the compensation payable for registered articles and section 33 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, mentions about the compensation payable in respect of insured articles.  Since article under complaint is only a registered letter, clause 170 of Post Office Guide Part I is applicable.  Opposite party further contended that the Hon'ble National Commission in RP No.3591/2009 held that, “the liability of Government of India for loss or misdelivery of insured articles and loss in the course of transmission by post is not contractual but purely statutory in nature”.  The Hon'ble Commission further emphasised this fact in paragraph 10 of above judgement citing RP No.175 and 247 as that, “services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability”.

 

The article in question is a registered letter and the maximum compensation that can be offered to the sender of the article is Rs.100/- .  Hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties in this matter and the complainant may be dismissed  with cost.

 

In their version, 5th opposite party contended that the consolidated grace card and provisional certificate were despatched to him on 31.10.2015 by registered postal in the address of his application.  There is no lapse of service from the part of this opposite party.

 

Complainant and his father John Varkey were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked from their side.  Ext.P1 is the copy of petition submitted before the Superintendent of Post Office.  Ext.P2 is the copy of petition submitted by the complainant before the SDI of Posts.  Ext.P3 is the copy of statement which the complainant was given to the sub divisional mail overseer.  Ext.P4 is the copy of complaint submitted before the PMG.  Ext.P5 is the copy of mark list.  Ext.P6 is copy of reply from the office of the chief PMG, Kerala Circle.  Ext.P7 is the copy of reply from Superintendent of Post Office, Idukki.  Ext.P8 is the copy of statement given by the 1st opposite party to the post sub divisional overseer, Kattappana.  From the defence side, no oral or documentary evidence are produced.        (cont......5)

-  5  -

The POINT :-  We have heard learned counsels for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

 

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the fact as pleaded in his complaint, were duly supported by the proof affidavit and the exhibits.  He further argued that the 1st opposite party failed to produce any piece of evidence to substantiate her version that, the alleged registered article was delivered to the father of the complainant.

 

It is an admitted fact that on the date of alleged delivery, complainant was out of station, but he has not given any letter or standing instruction to the postal authorities to deliver his registered letter to his father.  The signature in the delivery slip are not also not produced by the opposite parties to strengthen their plea.  We do not find any evidence which can establish that the letter was delivered to the complainant or his father.  Moreover, if the addressee was not found, it was incumbent of the post woman, 1st opposite party, to return the envelope to the sender.  As it was a registered letter, there was no reason for her to deliver it to anyone else.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the 1st opposite party, postal woman deliberately did not deliver the registered letter to the complainant only to stop his further studies, since the registered cover contains his BA degree certificate and the sender is M.G. University, Kottayam.  The opposite party on the other hand stated that the complainant purposefully avoided to intake serving the letter and engaged his father to serve it.  We do not find any merit in the 1st opposite party's argument.  Moreover, it is very pertinent to note that, the postal authorities conducted enquiry in this matter and after convincing the contention of the complainant, they initiated disciplinary action against the 1st opposite party and she was suspended from the service forthwith.

 

The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that as per section 6 of the Post Office Act, there is couple exemptions from the liability for loss, non-delivery, delay or damage of a postal article.  It  reads as follows : “Exemption from liability for loss, non-delivery, delay or damage -  The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, non-delivery or delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as herein after provided and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, non-delivery, delay or

  (cont......6)

-  6  -

damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default”.

 

In the instant case, 1st opposite party, the postal woman on non-availability of the actual address of the complainant,  did not returned the letter to the sender.  She claimed that, she delivered it to the father of the complainant, but this is not supported by any evidence.  Other opposite parties, the postal authorities, failed to produce any document to show that the registered letter was properly delivered to an authorised person. It is the liability of the postal authority to furnish proper records before the forum to substantiate that the concerned postal agent properly served the postal article to the concerned person and returned the acknowledgement of service of the postal article to the concerned postmaster.   The opposite parties 2 to 4 are miserably failed to produce any records relating to the service of registered article.  This act of the 2nd to 4th opposite parties warranted deficiency in their service and they are liable to be compensated alongwith 1st opposite party.   At the same time, the complainant failed to produce any document to prove that, the non-delivery of the registered article caused much damages and financial loss to him as stated in the complaint.

 

In the result, the complaint allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation to the complainant.  The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  27th day of  April, 2018

 

      Sd/- 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

        Sd/- 

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

      (cont......7)

 

 

-  7  -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -   Arun John.

PW2               -   John Varkey. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1        - copy of petition submitted before the Superintendent of Post Office.  

Ext.P2       - copy of petition submitted by the complainant before the 

SDI of Posts.  

Ext.P3      - copy of statement which the complainant was given to the 

sub divisional mail overseer.  

Ext.P4       -  copy of complaint submitted before the PMG.  

Ext.P5       -  copy of mark list.  

Ext.P6       -  copy of reply from the office of the chief PMG, Kerala Circle.  

Ext.P7       -  copy of reply from Superintendent of Post Office, Idukki.  

Ext.P8       - copy of statement given by the 1st opposite party to the post 

sub divisional overseer, Kattappana. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT