Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/54/2015

Poola Giribabu, S/o. P.Ramachandraiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.Varada Reddy - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 13.11.2015

Order Date:15.09.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.54/2015

 

 

Between

 

 

Poola Giribabu,

S/o. P.Ramachandraiah,

Hindu, aged 23 years, Unemployee,

D.No.1074, Poolavari Kandriga,

Vedurukuppam Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         Mr.Varada Reddy,

            S/o. not known to the complainant,

            Postman,

            Komaragunta Village,

            Vedurukuppam Mandal,

            Chittoor District.

 

2.         The Sub-Post Master,

            Pachikapalam Post Office,

            Vedurukuppam Mandal,

            Chittoor District.

 

3.         The Chief Post Master General,

            Andhra Pradesh,

            Hyderabad.

 

4.         The Post Master General,

            Kurnool Region,

            Kurnool.

 

5.         The Superintendent of Post Office,

            Tirupati Division,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 26.08.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for complainant, and Sri.K.Ajey Kumar, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections – 12 & 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs against the opposite parties 1 to 5, 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 5 to deliver the registered speed post cover sent by J.N.T.University, Ananthapur, on 29.03.2014 to the complainant, 2) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 5 to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and for missing the job opportunities for want of B.Tech certificate and 3) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 5 to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the litigation.      

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant is physically handicapped suffering from orthopedic disability. He studied B.Tech in S.V.College of Engineering and Technology, which is a 4 years course. He is  successfully qualified in B.Tech in the year 2013 in Electrical and Electronic Engineering in 1^st division. That the complainant applied for Convocation Certificate of B.Tech degree by remitting Rs.2,000/- through State Bank of India, Main Branch, Tirupati, on 04.12.2013, and enclosed a copy of Provisional Certificate of B.Tech along with D.D. in favour of J.N.T.U., Ananthapur, for issuing B.Tech degree certificate after convocation to be held in March 2014. As complainant did not receive the degree certificate till August 2014, he went to J.N.T.U., Ananthapur on 03.09.2014 and on enquiry, the university authorities informed the complainant that his B.Tech degree certificate was already sent to his address on 29.03.2014 itself under registered No.EN 866090476 IN by speed post with postal acknowledgement. He returned from Ananthapur and made enquiries on 05.09.2014 with opposite party No.1, who informed the complainant that the said registered speed post cover was delivered to one Ravi of the same village with instructions to deliver the same to the addressee. On enquiry the said Ravi replied that he did not receive any registered letter from opposite party No.1.

            3.  On 17.09.2014, the complainant lodged a complaint before opposite party No.2 for non-delivery of speed post cover and requested the opposite party No.2 to make enquiry and see that cover to be delivered to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant met with Inspector of Post Office, Pachikapalam, personally and complained about non-delivery of his B.Tech certificate, but no action was taken. Therefore, he made complaint / representation to higher officials (opposite parties       3 and 4) by e-mail on 16.12.2014. Opposite party No.3 endorsed the same on next day to opposite party No.4, to resolve the issue and copy of the same marked to complainant. As no results forthcoming, he addressed a letter to opposite party No.5 on 18.06.2015, to take necessary action, but in vain. Complainant also sent reminder to opposite party No.3 through e-mail on 09.07.2015, who inturn sent reminder to opposite party No.4 on 13.07.2015, to expedite the enquiry, but no action was initiated and no progress was found in the matter. Hence, complainant issued legal notice on 11.09.2015, which was delivered to opposite parties 1,3, 4 and 5, inspite of it complainant could not received the degree certificate so far. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 5. Hence the complaint.

            4.  Opposite party No.5 ( The Superintendent of Post Office, Tirupati Division, Tirupati) filed written version and the same was adopted by opposite parties 1 to 4. In the written version, opposite parties denied the complaint allegations parawise and further contended that complainant is not the sender of speed post No.EN 866090476 IN and no complaint is received from J.N.T.University, Ananthapur. That the speed post article was found to be delivered on 05.04.2014 at Komaragunta B.O. a/w. Pachikapallam S.O. vide letter issued by S.P.M., Pachikapallam S.O. dt:15.09.2015. The complainant gave letter to opposite party No.5 on 08.06.2015 regarding non-delivery of speed post article. Opposite party No.5 conducted enquiry through Inspector, Posts, Tirupati West Sub-Division, which revealed that speed post article No.EN 866090476 IN addressed to P.Giribabu, was reported to have been delivered on 05.04.2014 by the GDSMD (Postman) to one Ravi, who stated to be a neighbour of the complainant.

            5.  Opposite parties further contended that as per the delivery instructions of the speed post article, the speed post article can be delivered to any person available in the address according to relevant office rules memorandum bearing No.57/01-2010-BD & MD dt:01.06.2010. As the complainant has not furnished the particulars of the speed post article in his letter dt:17.09.2014, no action could be initiated on his letter. Thus there is no deliberate inaction on the part of the opposite parties. That the complainant has not furnished the details of the speed post article referred to above in his e-mail dt:16.12.2014 addressed to opposite party No.3 i.e. the CPMG, A.P.Circle Hyderabad. The complainant in his letter dt:08.06.2015 addressed to opposite party No.5 mentioned that the speed post cover containing B.Tech Convocation Certificate had been delivered to un-known person by the postman (opposite party No.1). The opposite parties in their written version at para.20 to 22 narrated the procedure for delivery of speed post article and addressee specific speed post articles.

            6.  The opposite parties further contended that the complaint should be given by the sender of the speed post article but no such complaint from the sender J.N.T.University, Ananthapur. Complaint should be lodged by the sender within 30 days from the date of booking the article, no such complaint was received by the opposite parties so far. Contract is between the Postal Department and J.N.T.University, Ananthapur, but not with the complainant. The preservation period is only 6 months, after expiry of the prescribed period, concerned records will be weeded-out as per the procedure. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            7.  As per Section-6 of Indian Post Offices Act 1898, the opposite parties are exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage. The Department shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay 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 hereinafter provided and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently by his willful act or default As per the rules the sender is only authorized to get the compensation in case of loss of article but not the addressee. The article is delivered at the given address, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant can obtain Convocation Certificate from J.N.T.University, immediately after knowing the fact of non-receipt of original convocation certificate. The university authorities will issue any number of certificates. This complaint is filed with an intention to harass the opposite parties for wrongful gain. There is no cause of action for filing the complaint and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            8.  The learned counsel for both parties have filed the evidence affidavits of P.W.1 and R.W.1 respectively, and got marked Exs.A1 to A22 for the complainant and Exs.B1 to B5 for the opposite parties. The learned counsel have filed their respective written arguments. Heard the counsel for both parties.

            9.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the

        opposite parties?  

(ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

(iii)  To what relief?

10.  Point No.(i):-  to answer this point, it is pertinent to mention that complainant has applied for convocation for the award of B.Tech degree by remitting Rs.2,000/- through S.B.I. Main Branch, Tirupati, on 04.12.2013 in favour of J.N.T.University, Ananthapur, along with a copy of Provisional Certificate of B.Tech along with D.D. Convocation is to be held in the month of March 2014. But the complainant did not receive the Convocation Certificate till August 2014. As such he went to J.N.T.University, Ananthapur, and made enquiries. He came to know through the university authorities that B.Tech Degree Certificate was already sent to the complainant to the given address on 29.03.2014 itself under registered speed post No.EN 866090476 IN, but the Postal Department i.e. opposite parties did not deliver the same to the complainant. Later, he returned to Tirupati and made enquiries with opposite party No.1 on 05.09.2014, who informed the complainant that the speed post cover was delivered to one Ravi of the same village, to which complainant belongs, with instructions to deliver the same to the addressee (complainant). On enquiry the said Ravi stated that he did not receive any such speed post article. Till today the speed post article, which contains the Convocation Certificate of B.Tech Degree of the complainant is not delivered to the complainant. Therefore, he made further enquiries, but the opposite parties told the complainant that the speed post article was delivered on 05.04.2014 at Komaragunta B.O., a/w. Pachikapallam S.O. vide letter issued by S.P.M. Pachikapallam S.O. dt:15.09.2015. The version of the opposite parties is that the said speed post article bearing No.EN 866090476 IN addressed to Giribabu, the complainant herein was delivered on 05.04.2014 by the postman to one Ravi, who stated to be the neighbour of the complainant, and further contending that as the speed post cover in question was already delivered to one Ravi said to be the neighbour of the complainant, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and they were further opposing the complaint that complainant cannot file the complaint. If at all, any complaint is to be lodged, it should be from J.N.T.University, Ananthapur, as the contract was between the Postal Authorities and J.N.T.University Authorities. There was no complaint from J.N.T.University, Ananthapur, even otherwise the complainant can get any number of B.Tech Degree Certificates from J.N.T.University, by making application. As per Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, Department shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay 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

11. So, it is observed that there is no dispute with regard to sending of registered speed post article containing B.Tech Degree Certificate of the complainant, by J.N.T.University, Ananthapur, on 29.03.2014. There is also no dispute with regard to the description of said registered speed post article bearing No.EN 866090476 IN, in the name of the complainant, but so far as delivery of said registered speed post article is concerned, there are different versions from the opposite parties. Opposite party No.5 (the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati Division, Tirupati) filed written version and the same was adopted by opposite parties 1 to 4. In the written version filed by the opposite parties, it was specifically mentioned that the speed post article No. EN 866090476 IN addressed to Giribabu (complainant herein) was reported to have been delivered on 05.04.2014 by the GDSMD (Postman) to one Ravi (but not to the complainant). Under Ex.A16 reply given by the Superintendent RMS (Opposite party No.5) dt:13.10.2015 shows that articles was delivered to the address on 14.09.2015 i.e. about 1 year 5 months after 05.04.2014. Under Ex.A18 another reply given by opposite party No.5 dt:14.10.2015 shows that article U/R was delivered on 12.09.2015. Similarly under Ex.A19 dt:16.10.2015 another reply from the office of the opposite party No.5 No.CCC/COMPLAINT/KOMARAGUNTA BO/10-2015/DLGS dt:16.10.2015 intimated the complainant that the enquiry of the disposal of the speed post article No.EN866090476IN addressed to P.Giribabu, complainant herein, Komaragunta “is under process” please wait further communication. The subsequent document in Ex.A20 a letter from opposite party No.5 dt:29.10.2015 in which it was mentioned that in continuation of our letter regarding the complaint No.517100-00171, it is to inform you that the complaint of non-delivery of article of registered letters with acknowledgement with transaction No.RN496889459IN on 11.09.2015 of tp division tirupati rms do-517 is settled on 29.10.2015 with the following information that ‘article u/r was delivered at KNL CAMP B SO  on 12.09.2015’. By virtue of these documents, it prima facie appears that opposite parties 1 to 5, especially opposite party No.5, is giving date of delivery of speed post article in question differently from one other, which shows that opposite parties are giving these replies even without looking into the matter. 

12.  The written version filed by opposite party No.5, which was adopted by opposite parties 1 to 4, the date of delivery of said speed post article was mentioned as 05.04.2014, whereas Exs.A16 and A17 shows that the date of delivery of speed post was on 14.09.2015. Ex.A18 on the other hand shows that article was delivered on 12.09.2014. Surprisingly, the subsequent document Ex.A19 dt:16.10.2015 shows that enquiry in respect of the disposal of the speed post article in question was under process. It clearly shows that opposite parties 1 to 5 were not at all evincing any interest to trace-out the speed post article in question. Another document Ex.A20 shows that speed post article was delivered at KNL CAMP BSO on 12.09.2015. KNL perhaps indicates Kurnool. When the delivery was made on 12.09.2015 in Kurnool Camp B Sub Post Office, how it can be delivered on the same day to the neighbour of the complainant at Pachikapalam village within the jurisdiction of Tirupati. So, these versions clearly shows that opposite parties are negligent enough and also not at all evincing any interest or taking care of the registered speed post article, which contains the Degree Certificate / Convocation Certificate of the complainant.

13.  Opposite parties further contending that as per Section-6 of the Indian Post office Act 1898, the postal authorities are exempted from liability for loss, misplace, delay or damage of any article. Therefore, opposite parties 1 to 5 are not liable for the loss or mis-delivery or delay or damage of the speed post article in question and the complaint is not maintainable against them. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention what Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 shows.  The opposite parties have filed Ex.B5 photocopy of Indian Post Office Act only up to Sectoin-8 (incomplete document), as per which Section-6 runs as follows – Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage: The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-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 hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Similarly, the opposite parties also filed another document under Ex.B2 Office Memorandum No.57-01/2010-BD&MO, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts. Office Memorandum Ex.B2 laid down the procedure of delivery of speed post articles, Clause-2 deals with Delivery a) delivery of a speed post article in address specific i.e. a speed post article is to be delivered either to the addressee or any other person who takes delivery of the article at the address. b) signature and full name in block letters of the addressee of the person taking delivery of the speed post articles is to be recorded in the delivery slip. c) time of delivery shall be recorded on the delivery slip by the delivery official. None of these terms were complied with or followed by the opposite parties. No scrap of paper is filed before this Forum to show that the speed post article addressed in the name of complainant was delivered at the given address. No signature of the person taking delivery was recorded and no such delivery slip was filed in the Forum, similarly, the time of delivery is also not recorded anywhere in the pleadings or the evidence affidavit etc., since no delivery slip was filed in the Forum. The opposite parties also did not file any document or scrap of paper to show that speed post article addressed in the name of complainant was delivered to the alleged Ravi, so the contention of opposite parties is quite contrary to their own documents and procedure described under Ex.B2. Another document Ex.B3 is also filed by opposite parties, in which Clause-4 deals with speed post articles / money, Column No.2 shows that delay in delivery / non-delivery, column No.3 i.e. one month in case of inland speed post article. The opposite parties by this document wants to show that the complaint is to be lodged within one month from the date of booking of the article by the sender. By virtue of Section-24(A) of C.P.Act 1986, limitation prescribed for filing a complaint is 2 years from the date of cause of action. The provisions of C.P.Act has over riding effect over the Indian Post Office Act 1898. Therefore, the limitation prescribed in Indian Post Office Act 1898 for one month for filing complaint cannot be relied upon and the complaint is made well within the time.

14. So far as the competency of the complainant is concerned, we have to state that the complainant being the beneficiary, has every right to lodge a complaint for non-delivery of the speed post article addressed in his name by the J.N.T.University, Ananthapur, for delivering the B.Tech Degree  Certificate , for which he has paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- in favour of J.N.T.University, Ananthapur, i.e. he met the postal expenses on both the ways i.e. as beneficiary and as well as person paid for the service. The complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act 1986. By virtue of these pleadings, it is clear that there is negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Now another important question is whether the provisions of Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 comes to the rescue of the opposite parties? In this regard, the learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on a decision reported in 2015 CJ (NCDRC) 787 Niranjan Sahoo Vs. Manager, Speed Post Customer Care Centre, this decision deals with Revision Petition No.717/2010 and Revision Petition No.896/2015. Both the revision petitions were filed with regard to delay in delivery of speed post article. In R.P.No.717/2010, the complainant Niranjan Sahoo was sent an interview letter by Institute of Development Studies , Kolkata, requesting him to appear for an interview for selection to a faculty position, at its campus on 02.06.2007. The letter dispatched by the aforesaid institute was posted through speed post on 22.05.2007 but came to be delivered to the complainant on 06.06.2007, four days after the date of interview, as a result, the complainant could not appear in the interview and lost an opportunity of being considered for the above post. In Revision Petition No.896/2015, the case of complainant is that on  04.08.2007 Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar National Institute of Social Science, Indore, sent a letter addressed to his brother, which reached him on 29.08.2007, as a result his brother lost admission in the aforesaid institute and claimed compensation of Rs.9,99,000/- being expenditure incurred in acquiring educational qualifications required for the job and Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. The Hon’ble National Commission held that the complainant neither paid for speed post nor a beneficiary. Hence, he has no locus standi to institute a complaint and the revision petition by the opposite party allowed. The complainant / respondent in R.P.No.717/2010 filed a case and the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. The opposite party filed appeal before the State Commission in which enhanced compensation Rs.1,00,000/- and awarded costs of Rs.10,000/-. In the revision petition filed by the opposite party Hon’ble National Commission held that complainant was entitled only to compensate speed post charges as compensation. The liability of the post office cannot exceed the aforesaid amount in a case of delay in delivery of an article sent by speed post. In the case on hand, the speed post article is not delivered so far. Therefore, the above facts of the decision are not applicable to the case on hand. The counsel for opposite parties also relied on another decision reported in  1999 CJ (NCDRC) 728 – Post Master, Imphal Vs. Jamini Devi Sagolband – It is also in respect of delayed delivery of postal packets to the National Tutorial, Bombay. Clause-81 of Post Office Guide provide limitation of 3 months for lodging complaint for loss or damage of registered or insured article. But it has no relevance for the purpose of the case under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, as held by their Lordships National Commission. Therefore, the facts of the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, on the ground that in the above said decisions the delivery of postal article was made in delay, whereas in the case on hand for the last more than 2 years the speed post article addressed in the name of complainant was not at all delivered (so far), on the other hand they are contending that the speed post article was delivered and the date of such alleged delivery was mentioned differently, at one stage the opposite parties mentioned that the delivery was made on 05.04.2014, 12.09.2015 and at another stage they have mentioned that the delivery was made on 14.09.2015. Under Ex.A19 dt:16.10.2015 it was mentioned that enquiry in respect of the disposal of speed post article in question was under process. So, they are taking divergent views and giving different dates and raised false pleas intentionally. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898, should not come to the rescue of the postal authorities, who acted deliberately in negligent manner, in the absence of any scrap of paper in support of the alleged delivery of speed post article in question and nowhere it was mentioned specifically that the registered post article was delivered in the address of the complainant.

15.  The learned counsel for the complainant relied on a decision reported in 2010 CTJ 1338 (CP) (SCDRC) – Sita Ram Dhiman Vs. Senior Postmaster, Department of Post-India, GPO and another, in which the facts in brief are, according to complainant he booked a speed post envelope containing migration certificate of his daughter from Himachal Pradesh University through opposite party No.2, Post Office, Bus Stand, Shimla, on 23.08.2006, this was to be delivered to his son-in-law Sri Avinash Chander in Gujarat. But it did not reach the address, as a result of which his daughter could not get admission in B.Ed course and lost one valuable academic year. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and claimed damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite parties contended that complaint is not maintainable in view of Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 and complainant ought to have insured in accordance with Notification dt:22.01.1999, complainant was entitled to refund of double the speed post charges of Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. The Hon’ble State Commission held that Section-6 of the Indian Post Act 1898 not providing windscreen to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence and dismissed the appeal of opposite parties. He also relied on another decision reported in 1(2009) CPJ 132 (NC) Supdt. Of Post and Telegraph Department Circle at Solan Vs. M.L.Gupta – the brief facts of the case are that complainant (M.L.Gupta) has alleged that he has been deprived of the interest on the sum of Rs.11,23,882/- between the period the authority issued by the Senior Deputy General of Accountant General (A&E) for release of the GPF till date of the actual release, due to the negligence of the staff of the Sr.Post Office. The District Forum awarded Rs.10,000/- compensation along with Rs.2,000/- as costs. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum, Hon’ble National Commission upheld the orders of the State Commission as well as District Forum and dismissed the revision petition of the opposite parties. This citation is helpful to say that Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 do not come to the rescue of the postal authorities when there is negligent act on their part. The learned counsel also relied on another decision reported in II (1993) CPJ 988 (Orissa SCDRC, Cuttack) Nirmal Panda Vs. Post Master General & Others. This is in respect of non-delivery of postal article, in which their Lordships of State Commission held person receiving the article for delivery renders a service for payment. So far as post offices receiving the articles, telegram or money, there cannot be any dispute that it is a service. The complaint was allowed holding that the postal authorities are liable under Section-49 of Indian Post Office Act 1898.

16.  In view of the above decisions, it is clear that there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or that the delay or non-delivery of any speed post article to the addressee with negligence or willful default and contending that it was delivered to somebody else other than the complainant that to not in the given address. The provisions of Sectoin-6 of Indian Post Act 1898, does not come to the rescue of postal authorities. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that complainant has established that there is negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, this point is answered.

17.  Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, we have to state that the complainant being the beneficiary got every right to file the complaint against the opposite parties, since he is a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act 1986. As the opposite parties failed to deliver the speed post article, which was booked by the J.N.T.University, Ananthapur, in the name of complainant on 29.03.2014 to the complainant’s address specifically mentioned under registered speed post cover No.EN 866090476 IN, was not so far delivered to the complainant or any of his family member in the given address. On the other hand, it was contended by the opposite parties that the registered speed post article was delivered to one Ravi on 05.04.2014, in support of which no scrap of paper is filed, thus they have violated the terms under Ex.B2. It shows that postman, who alleged to have been delivered the said speed post article is prima facie negligent and did not take responsibility to ensure that the speed post article was properly delivered to the addressee and they were given different dates stating that the speed post article was delivered, but it was not specifically mentioned in Exs.A16, A17, A18 and A20, to whom it was delivered either in the pleadings, evidence affidavit or in the written arguments. Exs.A16 to A20 are supporting the case of complainant and those documents are on the other hand establishing that the opposite parties are negligent in rendering services to their consumers or their beneficiaries in discharging their responsibility. The purpose of booking registered post, speed post etc. are with much confidence that the postal authorities will ensure prompt delivery, but this confidence was defeated by the opposite parties. Consequently, the complainant could not get his original degree convocation certificate and suffered mental agony for more than two years, for which the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation. The complainant is therefore entitled to the claim made against the opposite parties. Accordingly, this point is answered.

18. Point No.(iii):-  in view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also for causing mental agony to the complainant and complaint is therefore to be allowed.

In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 5 jointly and severally to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the loss of original Degree Certificate / Convocation Certificate of the complainant, due to their negligence and deficiency in service and also towards cost of the postal charges. The opposite parties 1 to 5 jointly and severally also further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 13.11.2015, till realization.                         

             Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 15^th day of September, 2016.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-             

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

PW-1: Poola Giribabu(Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party/s.

RW-1: T.A.V. Sharma (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of certificate of disability issued by District Medical Board, Chittoor to the Complainant. Date of Issue: 30.09.2010.
	Photo copy of Provisional Certificate to P. Giribabu issued by J.N.T University, Ananthapur. Dt: 01.08.2013.
	Photo copy of Transfer Certificate of P. Giribabu issued by the Principal, S.V. College of Engineering & Technology (Autonomous),Chittoor. Dt: 27.11.2013.
	Photo copy of Study cum Conduct Certificate of P. Giribabu from 2009-10 to 2012-13 issued by the Principal, S.V. College of Engineering & Technology, Chittoor. Dt: 27.11.2013.
	Photo copy of news item of Andhra Jyothi, Tirupati Edition about non- delivery of Speed Post cover containing B.Tech. Certificate by the Postal Department.  Dt: 13.09.2014.
	Photo copy of Complaint, Post Master of Pachikapalam Post Office by the complainant for non-delivery of speed post cover to him. Dt: 17.09.2014.
	Photo copy of E-mail letter to the Chief Post Master General, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Hyderabad by the complainant about non-delivery of speed post cover and their reply. Dt: 16.12.2014 and 17.12.2014.
	Photo copy letter to the Superintendent of Post Office, Tirupati about non-delivery of speed post cover and for enquiry. Dt: 18.06.2015.
	Photo copy of Income Certificate of the complainant issued by the Tahsildar.  Dt: 19.06.2015.
	Photo copy of E-mail addressed to the Chief Post Master General, A.P.Circle by the complainant along with their reply. Dt: 09.07.2015 & 13.07.2015.
	Office copy of legal notice to Opposite Parties 1 to 5. Dt: 11.09.2015.
	Postal acknowledgement from Sub-Post Master, Pachikapalem. Dt: 15.09.2015.
	Reply from Opposite Party No.3 received on 01.10.2015. Dt: 23.09.2015.
	Photo copy of letter addressed to Superintendent of RMS, Tirupati about non-delivery of postal acknowledgement of Opposite Parties No.1,3,4 & 5. Dt: 01.10.2015.
	Letters(5) in original from Superintendent, RMS, Tirupati for receipt of complaints regarding non-delivery of postal acknowledging. Dt: 12.10.2015.
	Two letters in original by Superintendent, RMS, Tirupati in reply stating that the registered letter addressed to Opposite Parties 3 & 5 were delivered on Dt: 13.10.2015.
	Letter in original from Superintendent, RMS, Tirupati intimating that the registered letter RN496889462IN on 11.09.2015 addressed to Registrar of JNTU, Ananthapur on 14.10.2015.
	Another letter in original of reply by the Superintendent, RMS, Tirupati intimating that the regd. Letter RN496889445IN on 11.09.2015 addressed to Opposite Party No.1 was delivered on 12.09.2015. Dt: 14.10.2015.
	Letter from Opposite Party No.5 intimating to the lawyer of the complainant to await further communication. Dt: 16.10.2015.
	Letter in original from Superintendent, RMS, Tirupati regarding deliver of regd. post RN496889459IN on 11.09.2015 addressed to Opposite Party No.4 Post Master General, Kurnool was delivered on 12.09.2015. Dt: 29.10.2015.
	Photo copy of Online information regarding job exiting opportunities for B.Tech. Qualification. Dt: 21.07.2015, 13.09.2015, 05.10.2015, 18.10.2015.
	Photo copy of Regd. letter addressed to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati Division, Tirupati on behalf of complainant stating that no further information was received from him as proceeding to the Forum. Dt: 03.11.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested photo copy of Letter issued by the SPM, Pachikapalam. Dt: 15.09.2015.
	Attested copy of Office memorandum bearing No.57-01/2010-BD&MD towards the procedure of delivery of speed post articles.
	Attested copy of Grievance Redressal at A-Glance.
	Attested copy of Procedure of Preservation period of Postal Records.
	Attested copy of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898(6 of 1898).

 

 

                                                                                                                                     Sd/- 

                                                                                                                      President

              // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

          

 

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.