BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ATVISAKHAPATNAM.

FA.NO.603 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.718OF 2007 District HYDERABAD.

Between:

The Business Manager, Speed Post,

Department of Post, Head Post Office,     

Abids,Hyderabad.                                                                                                                                        

R.K.Roy, 64, Ganesh Nagar,

West Marredpally,

Secunderabad-500 026.                                         

Counsel for the Appellant                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Counsel for the Respondent:   

QUORUM:THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

***

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.718/2007 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad Opposite party preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant booked a speed post article at Nehrunagar Post Office on 15^th US31-12-2006. 30-12-2006   

Opposite party filed counter and admitted that the complainant sent a speed post article (‘SPA’ for short) No.EE62331560IN on 15-12-2006 from Nehrunagar Post Office, Secunderabad addressed to his daughter and also registered his complaint vide letter dated 30-12-2006 about non-delivery of the said speed post article.  2-3-2007.    USA   Opposite party   

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A11 and B1 to B6 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.814/-, the charges of speed post paid by the complainant, Rs.5,000/- for traveling, stay for getting duplicate certificate, Rs.3,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party preferred this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that the postal article in question has reached U.S.A. and that as per Rule 66B of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, the liability of the Postal Department in case of delay in delivery of the speed post article is beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts from time to time and the compensation shall be equal to composite speed post charges paid in the event of loss of or damage to the contents.  11-7-1996.  

He relied on the judgement of the National Commission inVIMAL KISHORE JHA v. UNION OF INDIA inR.P.No.562/1993 and UNION OFIndiaand submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their behalf. 

We observe from the record that it is an admitted fact that the complainant booked a speed post article at Nehrunagar Post Office on15-12-2006U.S.A. U.S.31-12-2006. 30-12-2006 

Opposite party admitted in their counter that the complainant had sent a speed post article on15-12-200630-12-2006  U.S.A. 5-2-2007. 15-12-2006 

The complainant in his written arguments denied the receipt of this letter dated5-2-2007. 5-2-2007. 31-8-200715-12-2006.   

The learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo dated 11-7-1996

‘Sub: Refund in case of loss on international Speed Post Article.

Please refer to this office letter No even dated26-5-95

The Department has decided to increase the compensation to be paid in case of loss of an international Speed Post article from 24.50 SDR 30 SDR per item.

The rate of SDR effective from 1^st10-11-95.

(Copy endorsed by Sr. Accounts Officer (Costing and rates).

It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not preferred any appeal and hence the question of enhancing the compensation does not arise.