Tamil Nadu

Thiruvallur

CC/40/2012

S.Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sub Post Office, Kadambattur - Opp.Party(s)

M.Venkatarangam

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                Filed On:28.12.2012

                                                                             Disposed On:12.08.2015

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  THIRUVALLUR

        PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M                : PRESIDENT

              TMT.    S. SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                                         : MEMBER-I

Wednesday, the Day of 12^th August-2015

  C.C.No.40/2012

S.  Srinivasan,

S/o Late P. Subramanian,

No.130, Kuttaikarai Street,

Adikathur Village,

Tiruvallur Taluk,

Kadambathur 631 203.

                                                -vs-                                … Complainant

1. Sub Post Master,

     Kadambathur Post Office,

     Kadambathur.

               

2. Superintendent of Post Officer,

    Kanchipuram Division,

    Kanchipuram 631 501.                                                         … Opposite parties

 

Counsel For Complainant                          : Mr. M. Venkatarangam,  Advocate

Counsel For Opposite Parties-1&2                : Mr.M. P. Surulirajan,  Advocate

 

          This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 31.07.2015 in presence Mr.M.Venkatarangam, Advocate on the side of the complainant and M/s. M.P.Surulirajan, Advocate appeared on the side of the opposite parties-1and2, and upon hearing arguments on the side of both and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,

                                                ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.S.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT.

          This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- towards the cost of the complainant.

1.  The complainant’s father P. Subramanian was an employee of the southern Railway as a material checker T.NO. EX1113/LOCO Works/Perambur, Chennai.  At the time of in service his father died on 3.8.1972 at Railway hospital, Perambur.

2.   The complainants’ Mother also died on 27.2.1989. Two brothers have left the house 30 years ago and another sister has got married.  Now complainant and elder sister namely Kanakavalli alone are living together and find hard to meet day to day expenses.

3.   The Railway department has been issued letters by the complainant on the ground of compassion to give job to the complainant of his father.  The 1^st opposite party employee has to serve the post card, RPAD, Speed post etc.  to the complainant residence at Adhigathur village.  But the 1^st opposite party without serving the complainant waiting for a few days or so has simply returned the letter by Southern Railway on Employment  Endorsing there is no such person in that address.  It is a total misconception and deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party and his postmen.

4.     The postal employee has not verified the complainant’s address, he said simply no such person in that address.  Whenever the complainant asked in those thing to the postal department of kadambathur 1^st opposite party scolding and they have threatened complainant along with serving in particular post man, and not to proceed in this act and also has beatend the complainant by the employee of the postal department 1^st opposite party.  Hence this complaint.

Written version submitted by 2^nd Opposite Party on behalf of him and 1^st Opposite Party.

5.    The opposite parties 1^st 2^nd are denying all the allegations found in the complaint of the complainant which are all false.

6.   The contents of the alleged letter has also been given by the Railway Department vide letter no.  LW/RTI/2011/37/3/12/SS dated 07.01.2012, wherein the complainant was given 90 days to prefer second appeal under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.  Therefore the allegations of the complainant that he lost his employment due to non-delivery of the Registered Letter RT011892140IN is false and baseless.  It is evident that the Registered Letter RT011892140IN did not contain any employment order and it is only a communication with reference to the RTI application of the complainant.

7.     The Registered letter RT011892140IN was sent out for delivery immediately on receipt of the same on the following dates and the delivery staff attempted to deliver the said Registered letter to the complainant and on all his attempts, the address of the complainant could not be ascertained despite the enquiry had with the residents of the locality, and hence the Registered Letter was returned back to the sender on 14.10.2011.

8.       The delivery staff has made sincere efforts for delivery of the registered letter and only after enquiry with the residents of the village, he had returned the Registered letter to the sender.  The averment of the complainant that he was threatened and beaten up is not correct and baseless one, as this is an afterthought.  The other averments of the complainant are false and baseless.

9.         There is no deficiency in service by the opposite parties as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, “The Indian Post Office is exempted by law from all the responsibility in the case of loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post”.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10.        On the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit is filed for his evidence Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked.  While so, the opposite parties also filed the proof affidavit.  No documents marked . 

11.  At this juncture, the main point for consideration before this Forum is,

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
2. To What other relief the complainant is entitled?

Written Arguments submitted by the opposite parties .

12.     Point. No.1:-        According to the case of the complaint is that the 1^st opposite parties simply returned the letter date. 04.10.2011 addressed to the complainant from the department with endorsement as, ‘No such person’, in the said address without verified and not made any due enquiry with the adjacent residents which is totally misconception and therefore the complainant has lost his job and thereby caused mental agony and hardship. 

13.     On the other hand, it is contended by the opposite parties that alleged letter dated 04.10.2011 is not pertaining to appointment letter or call letter and therefore the allegations that the complainant has lost his employment due to non delivery of the said registered letter RTO 11892140 in is totally false and baseless since it is only a communication with reference to the RTI application of the complainant.  It is further stated that the delivery staff attempted to deliver the said letter with addressee but all ended in vain since the address of the complainant was not fully furnished and as per sec 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the postal department has been exempted and, therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

14.     At this Juncture, it goes without saying that the complainant is having bounden duty to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  First of all, on careful perusal of the evidence of the complainant, it is learnt that on the demise of the father of the complainant namely late P. Subramanian who was the employee of the Southern Railway as, ‘Material Checker’, who died in service, the complainant submitted an application to seek job on the compassionate ground to the Manager and FACAO respectively which are marked as Ex.A1 & A2.   ExA3 is the identity card and Ex.A4 is the death certificate of his father late   P. Subramanian.  It is further learnt that since no response, the complainant sent the legal notice Ex.A5 to the Railway authorities and  in this regard, the Railway department having intention to give a job and to that effect they have sent a letter through registered post Ex.A9 and the same has not been delivered to the complainant on due enquiry and simply returned after few days by the opposite party-1 with endorsement as, ‘no such addressee’ which is fully misconception since the complainant all along residing in the address given in the alleged letter which is clearly shown in Ex.A11 Ration Card.    It is further stated that he has lost a job due to the non-delivery of the registered post and caused mental agony and it clearly amounts for deficiency of service and issued Ex.A6andA7 legal notice to the opposite parties 1and2 and received by them on the acknowledgment card is marked as Ex.A8.

15.     At the outset, it is stated by the opposite parties-1&2 in the written version and proof affidavit that every effort was made for delivering the alleged registered letter to the complainant and even the delivery staff attempted to deliver the same but the address of the complainant could not be ascertained despite the enquiry had with the residents of the locality and hence the said registered letter was returned back to the sender on 14.10.2011 and therefore there is no personal  enmity or guilty intention to act on the part of the delivery staff and the same has not been  proved and hence there is no deficiency of service .  Moreover, it is narrated that as per Sec 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Indian Post Office is exempted by law from all the responsibility in the case of loss, misdelivery   or delay of or damage to any postal article in case of transmission by post, and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently  or by his willful act of default.

16.     In such circumstances on base reading of the above said section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act it is crystal clear that unless the postal staffs caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default or in other words the person who has committed the offence can be sued for damage but no action will lie against either the Central Government or any of its Officers vicariously for the willful act or default of the dealing clerk or postal peon.  In such being the position in the case on hand, the delivery staff after taking all efforts for delivery and then only he has returned to the sender with endorsement.  At this point of time, it is pertinent to note that there is no concrete and consistent evidence to show that the said delivery staff had acted fraudulently or by his willful Act or default on the side of the complainant.  Mere averments is not enough to hold the same.  Not only that the Opposite Parties are being the sub post master and superintendent of post office, they cannot be made liable vicariously for the willful act or default of the delivery assistant.

17.     At this juncture, it is seen from the Ex.A9, that the contents in the letter is pertaining to the communication with reference to the RTI application of the complainant dated 23.09.2010, 18.01.2011 & 15.03.2011 and the 1^st appeal dated 4.3.2011 addressed to CWM/LW/ personnel but it did not contain any employment order or call letter for interview of any post in the Southern Railway.  Therefore, this Forum, without any hesitation to hold that, if for argument sake, it is taken as, the registered post undelivered, there is no harm to the complainant and hence there is no question of losing any job and incurred loss and suffered mental agony.

18.     IN the light of the above facts and observation this forum has decided that the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties has not been proved of the complainant by means of consistent and cogent evidence.  Thus this point is answered accordingly.

19. Point No. 2     In view of the decision arrived in point no.1 the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.  Thus point no. 2 is answered accordingly. 

In the Result, this complaint is Dismissed No Costs.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 12^th August- 2015.      

Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

 List of Complainant Documents:

Ex A1. 28.3.1990       -   Xerox copy of  letter Complainant to Manager

Ex A2.  9.12.1996      -   Xerox copy of letter Complainant to FACAO

Ex A3         -               -   Xerox copy of  Identity card

Ex A4.        -               -    Xerox copy of  Death certificate

Ex A5.   22.7.2011     -    Xerox copy of Complainant advocate to1st   opposite

                                         Parties

Ex A6 .   1.10.2012    -    Xerox copy of Complainant advocate to 1^st opposite party

Ex A7.    20.11.2012  -    Xerox copy of  Complainant advocate to 2^nd opposite

                                         Party

Ex A8.                         -   Xerox copy of AD CAR

Ex A9.    4.10.2011     -   Xerox copy of  letter Under RTI Act

Ex A10.  14.9.2012     -   Xerox copy of  reply PMG to Complainant

Ex.A11         -            -    Xerox copy of Ration card

List of Opposite Parties Documents:                 -Nil-

 

Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                                     PRESIDENT