KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.119/10 JUDGMENT DATED 31.8.2010 PRESENTSMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram – 695033. 2. The Manager, Costomer care centre, Thalassery – 670102. -- APPELLANTS 3. Branch Postmaster, Branch Post Office, Punnad – 670703. (By agent R.P.Sandeep) Vs. K.P.Anandakrishnan, Kannothuputhiya Veedu, -- RESPONDENT P.O.Punnad - 670703. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.No.54/06 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in delivering the speed post article, containing the Passport to a person other than the addressee. The complainant claimed Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the speed post article containing the passport was delivered to the brother-in-law of the complainant/addressee from the post office on 8.12.03 and that there was no willful act or default on the part of the opposite parties against the interest of the complainant. They claimed immunity by virtue of the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW3 and two witnesses were examined on his side as PWs 1 and 2. Exts.A1 and A2 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. On the side of the opposite parties, DWs 1 and 2 were examined. Exts.B1 to B3 documents were also marked on their side. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below found the opposite parties deficient in rendering service to the complainant. The Forum below also found willful negligence on the part of the opposite parties in delivering the speed post article containing the Passport of the complainant to another person other than the addressee. Thus, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 7th January 2010 directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.1000/-. Hence, the present appeal. 3. We heard the authorized representative of the appellants/opposite parties and also the respondent/complainant who appeared in person. The authorized representative of the appellants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the complaint is not maintainable as the same was barred by limitation. It is further argued that the appellants/opposite parties are entitled to claim immunity under Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act, and so the compensation of Rs.50,000/- ordered by the Forum below is unjustifiable and unreasonable. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He submitted that he had suffered mental agony and financial loss on account of the willful negligence on the part of the appellants/opposite parties. It is further submitted that the appellants/opposite parties willfully committed default by delivering the speed post article to a person other than the addressee. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. There is no dispute that the third appellant/third opposite party received the postal article No.EE 765163599 IL for its delivery to the respondent/complainant. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant was the addressee. The said postal article containing the passport was issued by the Passport authority to the complainant K.P.Anadakrishnan. It is categorically admitted by the appellants/opposite parties that the said speed post article containing the passport received at the Punnad Branch Post office on 5.12.03 and the said speed post article was entrusted for delivery with the Gramine Dak Sevak Mail Delivers (GDSMD) of Punnad Post office on 5.12.03 itself. It is further admitted that the said speed post article containing the Passport was delivered through the window of the Post office by the Branch Post Master, Punnad on 8.12.03, to a person who introduced himself as the brother-in-law of the addressee. It is to be noted that the third opposite party/Branch Postmaster delivered the postal article to another person without the authorization of the addressee, the respondent/complainant. There is no case for the appellants/opposite parties that the respondent/complainant being the addressee of the said speed post article authorized any other person to receive the postal article on his behalf. There can be no doubt about the fact that the appellants/opposite parties being the officials of the postal department are bound to deliver the speed post article only to the addressee or to the authorized person who has been authorized by the addressee to receive the postal article. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the side of the appellants especially, the third appellant, Branch Post Master, Branch Post Office, Punnad for delivering the speed post article to some other person without any authorization or instruction from the addressee. The aforesaid unauthorized action on the part of the third appellant/third opposite party, Branch Post Master would amount to willful act of negligence. If that be so, the appellants/opposite parties are not entitled to get the immunity as provided under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. 5. The first appellant/first opposite party is the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle. The second appellant/second opposite party is the Manager, Customer Care Centre, Thalassery and the third appellant/third opposite party is the Branch Post Master, Branch Post Office, Punnad. The appellants being the officers of the Postal Department are legally bound and answerable for their willful negligence. The Forum below is perfectly justified in holding that the appellants/opposite parties are not entitled to avail the immunity envisaged under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. 6. There can be no doubt about the fact that the respondent/complainant is the beneficiary of the service of the appellants/opposite parties. The passport authority who availed the services of the appellants/opposite parties for delivering the speed post article to the addressee. It is an admitted fact that the said postal article contained the Passport issued in the name of the respondent/complainant. Thus, the respondent/complainant can be considered as beneficiary of the service rendered by the postal authority. Ext.A1 cash receipt issued from Regional Passport Office, Kozhikode would also make it clear that the respondent/complainant had remitted the required fee for issuing Passport in the name of the respondent/complainant. Thus, in all respects, the respondent/complainant is a consumer coming within the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 7. The appellants have got a case that the complaint in CC.54/06 is barred by limitation. The aforesaid complaint was filed on 17.2.06. The complainant got information about the mis-delivery of the speed post article containing his Passport in the year 2005. The complainant as PW1 has also deposed about this fact. The communication, the complainant received from the second appellant/second opposite party in 2006 would also make it clear that the complainant was making his earnest attempt to get his Passport from the Postal authorities. It is to be noted that the complaint in CC.54/06 has been preferred within one year of getting knowledge about the wrong delivery of the speed post article by the Postal authorities. So, the complaint preferred on 17.2.06 can be considered as one filed within the stipulated time. The contention of the appellants/opposite parties that the complaint was barred by limitation is really untenable and unsustainable. The Forum below has rightly entertained the complaint in CC.54/06. 8. The next aspect for consideration is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Forum below. The complainant as PW1 has deposed that he had sufficient opportunities to secure a job abroad and due to the willful negligence and laches on the part of the appellants/opposite parties he lost a job abroad. But the complainant has not adduced any other independent evidence to support his case that he had the opportunity to secure a job in a foreign country. It is true, that the person would not get employment VISA without obtaining a Passport in his name. So, the complainant was not in a position to secure employment VISA. 9. It is to be noted tat the complainant had the knowledge about the issuance of Passport in his name on 5.12.03. But, he was negligent in enquiring about the whereabouts of the postal article containing his Passport. The complainant was least bothered about the non acceptance of his Passport. He was not all vigilant in enquiring about the Passport which was issued by the Passport authority. Thus, there was negligence and laches on his part in securing the Passport which was issued in his name in December 2003. Admittedly, the complainant enquired about his passport only in the year 2005. This circumstance would show that the respondent/complainant was also negligent in the matter. Only because of his negligence, he had to suffer the consequences of not securing the Passport. The mere fact that there occurred willful negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the respondent/complainant suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/-. There can be no doubt about the fact that the respondent/complainant suffered mental agony and inconvenience on account of the willful negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties. But, for that willful negligence and deficiency in service reasonable compensation can be awarded to the complainant. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the attitude of the appellants and the respondent, this Commission is of the view that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Forum below is on the higher side. A compensation of Rs.20,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of Justice. The cost of Rs,1,000/- ordered by the Forum below can be treated as reasonable. Hence the same is upheld. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Forum below awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- is modified and thereby the compensation is reduced to Rs.20,000/- with cost of Rs.1000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order dated 7th January 2010 passed by CDRF, Kannur in CC.54/06 is modified and thereby the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Forum below is reduced to Rs.20,000/- with cost of RS.1,000/-. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER s/L |
