DATE OF FILING : 09.07.2009

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.127/2009

Between

Complainant : Valsala Gopi,

Puthuparambil House,

Pazhayarikandam P.O, Kanjikuzhy,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Jose Thomas)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Jose Paranthottam,

Branch Postmaster,

Pazhayarikandam Branch Post Office,

Pazhayarikandam,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

2. Sasi,

Postman,

Branch Post Office,

Pazhayarikandam P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Thodupuzha P.O, Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant is now residing with her father at her parental home at Pazhayarikandam. The complainant’s father is having a petty shop near Pazhayarikandam Post Office. She got a job as housemaid at a rich family at Alwaye whose family members are working abroad. The complainant together with her husband took a house for monthly rent at Pazhayarikandam where she got some land as parental share. The complainant is paying Rs.350/- as monthly rent to the owner of the house. A job was offered to the complainant as housemaid for a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month at abroad from her job place and she immediately accepted the offer. She must be ready with a passport as early as possible for the same. So she returned home at Pazhayarikandam and applied for passport. Since she was residing in a rented building, the passport authorities asked her to apply in the house name of landlord and also to produce the lease agreement. So with the consent of the house owner of the building, she applied for the same. The complainant communicated the matter to her father who was conducting a petty shop near Pazhayarikandam Post Office. She herself intimated through a by hand letter to the Postmaster that she had applied for passport in the house name of landlord where she resides together with family. The complainant’s father daily enquired about the passport addressed as Valsala Gopi, Allumpurathu House, Pazhayarikandam in the  Post Office and in the meantime the Ist opposite party told to the complainant’s father that one parcel from passport office came there, but the addressee was nobody but Valsala Gopi, Allumpurathu House, Pazhayarikandam. Immediately the complainant claimed for the parcel. The postmaster took an adamant stand that the house name of Valsala Gopi is Puthuparambil. The father of the complainant reminded about the letter given to the Postmaster stating Valsala Gopi is residing at Allumpurathu House on monthly rent basis. Immediately the Postmaster asked to bring Identity Card bearing house name ’Allumpurathu’ together with Rs.250/- as early as possible. The complainant’s father who is conducting a petty shop just 50 meters away from Pazhayarikandam Post Office brought the member of Grama Panchayath to substantiate the claim of the complainant and the postmaster opened the parcel in front of the Panchayath Member. But he was not ready to handover the same to the complainant’s father. Everyone saw the passport was addressed as Valsala Gopi. Finally the Ist opposite party sent back the passport. The person offered job abroad waited two more weeks and recruited another person for abroad job. She also lost her job at Alwaye. The 2^nd opposite party did not give intimation of registered envelop to the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party postman ought to have enquired where the complainant is residing. The Ist opposite party would have considered the letter given by the complainant to the postmaster. Besides the entire postmasters are regular customers of complainant’s father’s petty shop. Her father gave a complaint to the Postal Superintendent, Thodupuzha but no action was seen taken. So the complaint is filed for getting compensation and such other reliefs.

2. The Ist and 2^nd opposite parties filed written version. It is admitted that a new passport in the name of Valsala Gopi, Allumpurathu, Pazhayarikandam reached in Pazhayarikandam Post Office on 28.06.2008 and till 10.07.2008 the opposite party kept the same. The arrival of the passport was intimated to the complainant. However she could not furnish the address proof to substantiate her address, the address in the passport and the address of the complainant were different. If the address is different, the opposite party cannot deliver the same. The rules regarding the delivery of the passport is very strict. It has to be delivered to the addressee only. Even an agent can receive a money order, however the passport should be delivered to the addressee. On her claim, the passport cover was opened in the presence of the Panchayath Member and some respectable persons of that area. They also convinced that the address in the passport and the address of the complainant are different. It is a criminal offence to obtain a passport in a false address. The complainant could have very well apply for the passport in her father’s address or her husband’s house name. The opposite parties were not aware of the whereabouts of the complainant as she was not an ordinary resident under the Pazhayarikandam Post office. The complainant for the purpose of applying passport began to reside at Pazhayarikandam and applied for passport in the landlords house name. For that genuine reason the passport did not give to the complainant. So there is no deficiency in service and the petition may be dismissed.
 

3. As per the written version of the 3^rd opposite party, registered letter No.106592 containing a passport bearing address Valsala Gopi,Allumpurathu, Pazhayarikandam reached Pazhayarikandam Post office on 28.06.2008. The letter was returned to the sender on 7.07.2008 with remark "addressee not known". Actually the article was deliverable to Smt.Valsala Gopi, daughter of Sri.Gopalakrishnan, Puthuparambil, Pazhayarikandam. There are six houses at Pazhayarikandam with house name as Allumpurathu. The postman made enquiry at all these six houses and the inmates of all those houses informed that there were no person residing with name as Valsala Gopi. As the passport was not delivered, Sri.Gopalakrishnan, Puthuprarambil, Pazhayarikandam who is the father of the complainant, submitted a complaint to the 3^rd opposite party and a detailed enquiry was conducted relating to the complaint. Later the case was considered by Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes. The commission also did not find any fault in returning the letter to the sender. The complainant had not resided any day in any rented building at Pazhayarikandam. The complainant had not also handed over any letter to the Ist opposite party intimating that she had applied for passport in the house name of the landlord. The Inspector of Post Offices(Public Grievances) on the instructions of the 3^rd opposite party went to Pazhayarikandam and contacted the father of the complainant who sent the complaint to the 3^rd opposite party on 7.11.2008. A statement dated 7.11.2008 obtained from Sri.Gopalakrishnan, the father of the complainant and action has taken on that matter. The registered letter containing the passport was booked at Panampally Nagar by the Regional Passport office, Kochi who paid the charge for the service. So the customer relationship is with the sender of the article who paid the charge. Hence the department have to protect the interest of the sender of the letter and comply with his legitimate requirements. There are strict instructions from the Ministry of External Affairs to ensure delivery of passport only to the correct address and not to deliver it to anybodyelse evenif authorised and not to redirect the passport. This is to avoid persons possessing more than one passport obtained by giving different address. The delivery of passport also involves the matter of national security. The complainant is having a clear address as Valsala Gopi, Puthuparambil. Pazhayarikandam. She is also having a valid identity card with that address. It was also possible to give the house number as residential address which she did not do for reasons best known to her only. Instead she gave the house name of another person and insisted to deliver the letter with address as Allumpurathu to her. In the above circumstances in order to comply with the directions of the sender of the article who actually paid the charge for the service, it was returned to him. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 clearly lay down that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liabilities may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government and an officer of the Post Office shall not incur any liabilities by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. In the present case the return of the letter was not due to any wilful act or default of an officer of the postal department but only to comply with the instructions of the sender of the letter and to obey other statutory obligations. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 to P11 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 to 3 and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
 

6. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting compensation for the non-delivery of the passport to the complainant. The father of the complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that the complainant was residing at Pazhayarikandam in their family property but due to heavy wind and rain, their house destructed. So she availed a rented house at Pazhayarikandam which is owned by one Kanda Kochu, Allumpurathu, Kadukkakandam for a rent of Rs.350/- per month. The complainant was working as a housemaid at Aluva and her employer offered a job in abroad, instructed her to obtain a passport urgently. For that purpose she applied a passport in the present address. That matter was duly intimated to the opposite party by a letter which is marked as Ext.P11. But when a parcel addressed in the name of the daughter of PW1 arrived, PW1 approached the post office and claimed for the same. PW1 was promptly enquiring about the  passport at the Ist opposite party’s office. But the Ist opposite party replied that the parcel was for Valsala Gopi, Allumpurathu and it is not for the daughter of PW1. If the daughter of PW1 needed the same, she must produce the identity card bearing house name Allumpurathu and Rs.250/- as bribe. But PW1 was not able to pay the amount and the parcel was opened at the Post office by the Ist opposite party in front of the Member of the Grama Panchayath and the responsible persons of that area. Again the opposite party denied to deliver the same to the daughter of PW1 and sent back it to the sender’s office. So the daughter of PW1 lost the job offered by her employer and another person was posted in that vacancy. Even the job at the employer’s house was also lost by this reason. Several complaints were given to the 3^rd opposite party and the office of the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Exts.P8 and P10 are the copies of the complaints given to the Postal Superintendent, Thodupuzha.

7. As per the written version of the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties, it is admitted that a new passport in the address Valsala Gopi, Allumpurathu House, Pazhayarikandam had reached in the Pazhayarikandam Post office on 28.06.2008. Till 10.07.2008 the opposite party kept the same. The arrival of the passport was intimated to the complainant. However, she could not furnish the address proof to substantiate her address. The address in the passport and the address of the complainant were different. If the address is different, the opposite parties could not deliver the same. It is admitted that the passport cover was opened in the presence of the Panchayath member and some respectable persons of that area. They also convinced that the address in the passport and the address of the complainant were different. The opposite parties were not aware of the whereabouts of the complainant as she was not an ordinary resident under the Pazhayarikandam Post Office. For the purpose of applying passport, the complainant began to reside at Pazhayarikandam and applied for passport in the landlords house name. For that genuine reason the passport did not give to the complainant. So it is very clear from the written version of the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties that the arrival of the passport was intimated to the complainant. But she was not able to furnish the address proof to substantiate her address. Ext.R3 is the postman’s book kept in the Pazhayarikandam Post office from 7.06.2008 to 14.07.2008. DW3 is the Ist opposite party. He deposed that when a registered article comes in the post office, that matter will be entered into the postman book and in this case a registered parcel in the name of Valsala Gopi, Allumpurathu House, Pazhayarikandam was received at the Ist opposite party’s office on 28.06.2008. The 2^nd opposite party enquired about the addressee for 5 days and it was informed that there was no such person. So the registered was returned to DW3 by the 2^nd opposite party. It was kept upto 10.07.2008 for enquiry and returned to the sender stating that "the addressee not known". There are 6 houses in the name of Allumpurathu in the territorial jurisdiction of the Pazhayarikandam Post office. DW3 enquired in all these 6 houses and it is revealed that nobody is residing there in the name of Valsala Gopi. DW3 also enquired in the ration shop and also perused the voter’s list and it is revealed that there is no such person so the parcel was returned. The father of the said Valsala Gopi approached DW3 and told that her daughter had applied for passport in the postal address of Allumpurathu House. So DW3 directed him to bring ration card or identity card to prove the same. It is written in the identity card that the house name is Puthuparambil House and in the passport the address was written as Allumpurathu. So the house name is different and the parcel was returned. In cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, DW3 replied that PW1 is having a petty shop near 50 meters away from the Post Office and he is familiar to DW3. DW1 is the Assistant in Possport Office, Kochi. He deposed that the passport was applied by the complainant in the address Valsala Gopi, Allumpurathu, Pazhayarikandam. But the passport was issued after the verification of the police. In order to prevent the receipt of the passport by the criminal rackets and anti national activities, they are taking precautions in delivering the passport. So the passports are sending usually through speed post. If it is not delivered in the correct address,criminal action will be taken against the postal authorities. In cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, DW1 replied that the passports are also sending to persons who are residing in rented house, in the address of the rented house. It is the duty of the postal department to enquire about the delivery of the passport. The Special Branch DYSP, Idukki is examined as DW2. The file for the application of the passport of the complainant is with the DYSP, Special Branch, Idukki and in the personal particulars form issued from the passport office to his office, it is written the address of the complainant with photograph affixed. DW2 enquired to identify the photograph and address, whether the applicant is involved in any criminal cases. In this case, the Sub Inspector or the person entrusted by the S.I enquired about the house name and address of the complainant physically. In the personal particulars form, it is written that the present address of the complainant as “Allumpurathu House” and the other address as “Puthuparambil House”. In the report of the Head Constable, it is written that she is residing at the address Allumpurathu House. In cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, DW2 deposed that in the application received from the Passport office, it is written the present address and permanent address of the complainant. Both the addresses Puthuparambil and Allumpurathu were written on it. If she is not residing at the address "Allumpurathu" for the last one year, then another address is written as "Puthuparambil". It is in the personal particulars form at 8^th column, the answer is Allumpurathu and in the 9^th column, the answer is Puthuparambil, which is written as the present address and the other address respectively. PW2 who is the resident of Pazhayarikandam Panachayath stated that one police constable came there and enquired about the Valsala Gopi, Allumpurathu and he himself accompanied the police constable to the residence of Valsala Gopi, Allumpurathu House. The police constable came over there in the month April 2008 and the said Valsala Gopi started to reside there in the month of April 2008. PW3 is an autorikshaw driver who meet the Ist opposite party and the PW1 in a private bus. He heard that DW3 told to PW1 that the identity card and Rs.250/- is necessary for receiving the passport. It was when he was returning to have in the evening in a private bus.

The only dispute is that the house name of the complainant’s daughter is different from the original address of her. In the passport the house name of the complainant is written as that of the rented house of the complainant. So the complainant was not able to produce the address proof of the rented house and the passport was not delivered to the complainant. It is not the duty of the opposite party to insist the complainant to apply for passport with a particular address. As per PW1, her house was demolished in heavy wind and rain. So she was constrained to shift to a rented house and applied for a passport because it was very urgent for an urgent VISA offered by her employer. DW2, the DYSP(Special Branch), Idukki produced the file including the passport application of the complainant, in that application, the present address and the old address were also written. The present address is written as Allumpurathu and the other address is written as Puthuparambil. The Sub Inspector or the person authorised by the S.I has duly enquired about the criminal backgrounds, address, photo identification of the complainant and so the passport was issued to the complainant. So the address in the passport has duly verified by the police authority as per the direction of the passport office. PW2 also witnessed the same. It is admitted by DW3 that PW1 is conducting a petty shop, 50 metres near to the Post office. Ext.P11 application for getting the passport was given by PW1. But it was denied by DW3. But there is no dispute regarding the matter that the passport is addressed to Valsala Gopi. The only dispute is about the house name of PW1’s daughter. The opposite party also admitted that the parcel was addressed to Valsala Gopi. As per the written version of opposite parties 1 and 2, intimation was given to the complainant about the passport. But she could not furnish the address proof in the passport. The only reason for non-delivery of the passport by the opposite party which is written as the 8^th column of the written version is ’the complainant for the purpose of applying passport began to reside at Pazhayarikandam and applied for passport in the landlord’s house name’. There is no case that she did not claim for the passport. DW2 also admitted that the passport was opened before the responsible persons in the Panchayath, also before the Panchayath member and the father of the complainant was also present. They verified the passport and there will be a photograph of the complainant affixed on the passport. So the opposite party can identify the photograph even in front of the Panchayath member and responsible persons of the Panchayath.

Ext.R1 is the copy of the complaint given to the Postal Complaint Inspector stating the non-delivery of the passport and the request of bribe by the postal authorities which is produced by the opposite party. Ext.P6 is the copy of the Mangalam daily dated 16^th November, 2008 stating the news of the passport of Valsala Gopi, Puthuparambil was redirected to the passport office, because the complainant did not pay Rs.250/- as requested by the Postal Authorities. It is seen that no enquiry has been conducted by the 3^rd opposite party about these matters. The only enquiry conducted was about the opening of the registered article. Here the opposite party deliberately denied the delivery of the passport to the complainant because she applied the passport in the house name of the rented house. It is quite natural that the complainant is not able to make an address proof of the rented house within a short period, even the opposite parties cannot make an identity proof within a short time if they are residing in an official quarters. The complainant who is working as a housemaid for her daily bread having a son who is mentally retarded and her husband is laid up due to an accident. Her employer offered a job in abroad as housemaid VISA, so she urgently applied for a passport in the present address where she was residing. It is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party that the non-delivery of the passport even they opened the cover of the passport and the photo of the complainant was also verified by them. So we think that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 that the opposite party asked bribe for the delivery of the passport and which is a wilful negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party is duty bound to enquire about these matters and also responsible for the act of opposite parties 1 and 2. The postman and postal department are essential for the service of the public for serving the people and not for hurting them. The complainant suffered a lot because of the act of the opposite parties. She lost her job offered by her employer from abroad and also the present job. It may be true that the complainant lost her job because of the non-delivery of the passport and it made mental agony and hardships to her. So we think that Rs.50,000/- is sufficient for the hardships, mental agony and inconveniences caused because of the act of the opposite parties.

Hence the petition allowed. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, hardships and inconvenience caused to her and the expenses incurred by the complainant for the application of the passport, the consequences thereof and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month 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 30th day of January, 2010
 

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
 

Sd/-

I agree SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Gopalakrishnan

PW2 - Karunakaran

PW3 - K.P.Shaji

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - M.Neelakanta Iyer

DW2 - V.Vijayan

DW3 - P.J.Jose

Exhibits

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of complainant’s father’s letter dated 24.03.2009 addressed to the Kattappana Postal Public Information Officer

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of complainant’s father’s complaint dated 18.05.2009addressed to the Taluk Postal Superintendent, Thodupuzha

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of reply letter dated 17.04.2009 issued by the Postal Inspector, Kattappana

Ext.P4 - Carbon copy of 3^rd opposite party’s letter dated 25.03.2009 addressed to the complainant’s father

Ext.P5 - Letter No.10/A/IDK/08/KSCSCST dated 23.07.2009 of Registrar, Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

Ext.P6(series) - News dated 7.01.2009 published in the Mangalam daily & News dated 16.11.2008 published in the Deepika daily

Ext.P7 - Letter No.10/A/IDK/08/KSCSCST dated 6.02.2009 issued by the Registrar, Kerala State Commission for Scheduled

              Castes and Scheduled Tribes addressed to the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Thodupuzha

Ext.P8 - Photocopy of Complainant’s father’s letter dated 18.05.2009 addressed to the Postal Superintendent, Thodupuzha

Ext.P9 -  Photocopy of Affidavit dated 14.08.2008 signed by two witnesses

Ext.P10 - Photocopy of Complainant’s father’s complainant dated 15.01.2009 addressed to the State Postmaster General,

                Thiruvananthapuram and Postal Superintendent, Thodupuzha

Ext.P11 - Photocopy of Complainant’s father’s letter dated 17.05.2008 addressed to the Ist opposite party

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Photocopy of statement dated 7.11.2008 addressed to the Thodupuzha Postal Complaint Inspector

Ext.R2 - Photocopy of letter No.10/A/IDK/08/KSC SCST dated 20.12.2008 of Registrar, Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and

              Scheduled Tribes  addressed to the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Thodupuzha

Ext.R3 - Postman’s Book