Kerala

StateCommission

A/09/250

The Post master - Complainant(s)

Versus

Justin V - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2009

ORDER


Cause list
CDRC, Trivandrum
Appeal(A) No. A/09/250

The Post master
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Justin V
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 250/09
JUDGMENT DATED: 31.7.09
PRESENT
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                             : MEMBER
 
1. The Post Master,                                     : APPELLANTS
    Head Post Office, Thodupuzha.
2. The Post Master General,
    Thiruvananthapuram.
(R.P.Sandeep, Authorised representative)
                     Vs.
Justin.V.,                                                     : RESPONDENT
Justin House,
Neduvathoor,
Neeleswaram.P.O.,
Kottarakkara.
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT
 
 
The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in CC.73/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and also Rs.2000/- as cost.
            2. It is the case of the complainant that he booked a speed post money order for Rs.400/- at head post office, Thodupuzha on 7.4.08 to the addressee Mr.S.Warshal, Sathur post office, Viruthanagar, Tamilnadu who was assured that the amount will reaching the addressee on the second day. Rs.20/- money order charges and Rs.12/- for speed post charges were remitted. The money order did not reach the addressee on the second day or on the next day and hence he filed complaint.
          3. In the version filed by the appellant/opposite party it is submitted that the money order was booked as alleged. It is pointed out that the speed post money orders are sent to Thodupuzha sorting office first and from there to the destination through various transit post offices. The money order reached Sathur post office only on 10.4.2008 and was paid to the addressee on the same date. Only to important cities speed post articles are sent by aircrafts. It is denied that it was assured that money order will reach the addressee on the second day. The place of the addressee was a remote place in Tamil Nadu. The opposite party has relied on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act as per which the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of delay etc. except when the same was caused fraudulently or by willful act or default of an officer. Section 48 of the above Act, also is to the same effect. It was also relied on.
          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.P1.
          5. It is noted in the order that the complainant has deposed that the money order was sent for admitting the mother of Mr.Warshal in the hospital and Mr.Warshal is the helper of PW1. The 1st opposite party who was examined as DW1 ie. Post Master has stated that the complainant reached the 1st opposite party with his grievances only after receiving money order by the addressee. The Forum has held that as amount is received extra as speed post charges, the postal authority is bound to deliver the amount in time promptly.
          6. We find that in the instant case the appellants has not provided that any proper explanations for the delay. The money order was handed over to the addressee only on the 4th day. The appellant has not provided any details as to the date on which a speed post money order will reach the addressee in the particular place. All the same the contention that the place is a remote village in Tamil Nadu has not been disputed. It was due to the opposite parties to explain to the complainant that the article would not be reaching the destination with that speed as expected when he enquired before sending the money order. The opposite parties have not made any enquiry as to the reasons for the delay and whether it was on account of any default on the part of any staff of the opposite party.   Just mentioning that the place of destination is a remote place is not a sufficient explanation. All the same we are inclined to reduce the amount of compensation ordered in view of the fact there is no evidence that the complainant has sustained any serious damage due to the slightly delayed delivery of the amount. In the circumstances the amount of compensation is reduced to 500/-.   The rest of the order of the Forum is sustained.
          In the result the appeal is allowed in part.
 
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT
 
 
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                     : MEMBER
 
 
 
 
 
 
ps
 
 



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU