COMPLAINT FILED: 22-12-2010
DISPOSED ON: 13-07-2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
13th JULY 2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 2975/2010
Complainant | Gayatri Pandit, NA1-64 Vijaya Enclave, Billekhalli, Bannerghatta Road, Behind IIM, Bangalore. Inperson. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | 1) Post head Office, Post Master, 11th Main, Jayanagar 4th T block, Bangalore – 560041. 2) Post Office, Post Master, J.P.Nagar, Phase 2, 23rd Main, Near Ranga Shankara, Bangalore-560078. Advocate: Y.A.Sudhakar Babu |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
This is a Complaint filed by the complainant u/s. 12 of the C.P.Act of 1986 seeking direction against O.Ps. to pay Rs.2000/- towards loss of two new bed spreads , Rs.1000/- towards cost of typing, print outs, Xerox, phone, mobile charges, Rs.8000/- towards compensation for mental agony and humiliation under went by the complainant on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:
On 29-7-2010 complainant had sent parcel by speed post from Aurangabad, Maharashtra to Bangalore through O.P. under speed post receipt No. SP EM406769795IN. The contents of the parcel were 1. Printer (number 1), 2. Kitchen Blender (Number 1), 3. Bed spreads (Numbers 4). Due to baggage constraints complainant sent the above mentioned items by post and she took a flight to Bangalore on 30/7/2010 from Aurangabad. On 2-8-2010 at 5.45 p.m. complainant received the speed post parcel from postman by name Manjunath, who called at 5 p.m. and informed the complainant that the parcel was too heavy to be delivered & asked the complainant to visit the post office to collect the same. But complainant replied that as it was not a regular post but a Speed post wherein the parcel should be delivered to the destination. At 5.45 p.m. Postman delivered the parcel to the complainant. The appearance of the parcel did not look as neat as it was at the time of packing because complainant herself packed the parcel personally. Complainant asked the Postman to wait so that she could open the parcel in front of him but he refused to wait. Immediately after receipt of the parcel, complainant opened the parcel to check and found two new bed spreads worth of Rs.2000/- missing. Complainant called the postman to inform about the missing of the contents. Postman came back to her residence around 7.00 p.m. along with his friend. Complainant showed the difference in the seal on the cloth which was used for packing and postman too agreed to the tampering. Postman asked the complainant whether he should pack the parcel and send it back. Complainant told him that the contents in the parcel are for her personal use and she herself sent the parcel from Aurangabad on 29-7-2010. There is no point in sending it back. She has suffered loss. Hence she would complain about the same. On 3-8-2010 complainant met the Post Master at J.P. Nagar Post office and submitted her complaint and explained the background and also showed the cloth which was used for packing and seal near the area that was hand stitched was tampered. Post Master promised to do the needful by forwarding the mail to the authorized person. Even after lapse of 3 weeks when complainant did not hear from the Post office, Complainant went to main Post Office at Jayanagar. She met the Speed Post Supervisor Mr.Srinivas, he did not give proper response. At 4-15 p.m. on 24-8-2010 complainant met Purnima & verified whether complaint had reached them. After confirming the receipt of the same Purnima informed the complainant that Mr. Siddappa Sub-Inspector Post Office would come to meet the complainant for inspection. On 8-9-2010 Sub-Inspector Post Office Siddappa called the complainant and enquired whether parcel was insured. Complainant replied that she has paid Rs.806/- for the Speed Post and trusted the Indian Postal service. Hence she did not insure the parcel. He replied that since parcel was not insured nothing could be done. Complainant requested him to come home to check the packaging. He replied that on the basis of her statement he would send the report. On 5-10-2010 complainant called to the Speed Post department and spoke with Sindhu, clerk who is incharge of Sped post cases. She explained and asked the complainant to file a complaint at Aurangabad where complainant had booked the post. But complainant’s mother had already been to Aurangabad Speed post to complain. But the Speed post Aurangabad informed her to complain at the destination post which is at Bangalore. On 5-10-2010 Sindhu from Speed Post Department gave another number to contact and informed that the case is in progress. On 9-10-2010 Complainant called to that number given by Sindhu it is Miscellaneous complaints department for Bangalore South Division. Complainant spoke to Sitalakshmi & narrated the entire case. She collected the receipt number and contact details of the complainant and replied that she will call the complainant with updates. On 12-10-2010 complainant received the letter from Post office stating that the case has been closed from their end as their investigation showed, no damage to the parcel. On 12-10-2010 complainant called again to know that two letters have been sent to the complainant. But complainant received one letter wherein it was mentioned that there was no damage to goods. Complainant told her without there being any investigation how could they give this judgement. She informed that the cloth which was used to pack the parcel shows the difference of seals and can be proved that the parcel was opened before reaching the complainant. She told the complainant that it should have insured in order to get any refund. But complainant was not informed while sending the parcel to get it insured. On 12-10-2010 complainant called Public Relation Inspector Siddappa and asked without inspection on what basis he has given the judgement. On 12-10-2010 Purnima from South Division called the complainant and enquired whether Siddappa visited the complainant for inspection. Complainant replied that Siddappa has not come to her. Poornima said if he did not come within two days she personally come and inspect and she gave her mobile No.9945973954. On 18-10-2010 Postman called the complainant and informed that he along with Sub-Inspector coming for inspection. Complainant gave a reply stating she was busy and would appreciate if he would come after one hour. There was no call, again on 19-10-2010 postman called the complainant and informed that they are coming for inspection within 5 minutes. Complainant was not at home. Inspite of telling that to call at least 30 minutes before coming they did not listen. He said he has got other works to do. On 20-10-2010 complainant received a call from Post Office stating Manjunath and Siddappa are coming for inspection at 9-15 a.m. They visited her house and asked to address the issue. Complainant explained the case and showed them the cloth which was used for packing and difference between the seals. They asked her whether she weighed the articles before delivery Complainant replied no. On 20-10-2010 10 a.m. Postman Manjunath and her brother visited the complainant’s house and asked the complainant to take back the complaint and informed not to go to Consumer Forum & informed that Siddappa has asked the complainant to withdraw the case. Complainant did not appreciate the same. On 11-11-2010 complainant called Purnima and enquired about the letter of report. She replied that she would speak to the concerned person and ask to post it. On 17-11-2010 complainant received a letter from the Post office stating that the case has been closed as their investigation showed no damage to the parcel. Hence Complainant felt deficiency in service against the O.Ps. under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs.
4. On appreance O.P. filed the version admitting that Speed post article No.EM406769795IN was booked at Aurangabad on 29-7-2010 & same was received at J.P.Nagar Post Office on 2-8-2010 for delivery to the complainant. The said Speed Post Article was received in good condition and no tampering was noticed nor any adverse remarks was passed in office records of the J.P.Nagar Post office about the condition of the parcel. Further the Speed post article was delivered to the complainant on the day of receipt itself i.e. on 2-8-2010 in good condition. O.P. admits that the postman had called the Complainant over phone to inform the complainant to collect the Speed post article as the article was very huge. Complainant did not respond. Postman deposited the said article in office custody and proceeded for effecting delivery of the other speed post articles. After words once again postman called the complainant and informed to collect said article. Complainant refused to collect the article and insisted the postman to deliver the articles at her residence. The postman immediately visited the residence of the complainant at 5.45 p.m. on 2-8-2010 and delivered the Speed post article which was in good condition. O.P. admits that complainant had submitted the letter to Post Master, J.P. Nagar Post Office, alleging abstraction of contents from the Speed Post article delivered to her and said complaint letter was forwarded to the office of the O.P. and necessary enquiries were made into the grievances and reply to the complainant was given intimating that the Speed Post article was received in good condition and same was delivered in good condition and no tampering was noticed. Complainant must have denied to receive the article if she had any suspicion regarding the condition of the article. Where as complainant has taken the delivery of the article. Hence she is not entitled for any compensation and no tampering was reported before delivery. O.P. admits that enquiry officer again directed to visit the complainant’s house for further investigation as the complainant was not satisfied with the reply addressed to her in connection with the complaint. The enquiring officer along with concerned beat postman visited the complainant’s residence and submitted the report stating that further enquiry regarding the condition of the article could not been viable at this stage since complainant had opened the article after taking delivery. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation as article was received in good condition and was delivered in good condition and no tampering was reported before delivery. Among other grounds O.P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. To substantiate the complaint averments, complainant filed her affidavit evidence and produced copy of the original complaint lodged to J.P.Nagar Post Office, copy of the declaration filed at the time of sending the post, copy of the letters sent by O.P. dated:11-10-2011, 7-10-2011, 16-11-2011, speed post receipt, e-mail dated;29-10-2010 and a bill dated 25-7-2010 from Rajdhani Handloom house Aurngabad for having purchased the bed spreads. On behalf O.Ps. V.K.Mohan, Senior Superintendent of Post office, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore filed his affidavit in support of the defence version O.P. has not produced any documents. Complainant filed written arguments & submitted citations and O.P. also submitted written arguments. Heard arguments on both the sides.
6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arises for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant
proved the deficiency in service
on the part of the OPs?
Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant is
entitled for the relief now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:
Point No.1:- In Affirmative.
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
8. At the out set it is not in dispute that complainant had sent a speed post parcel from Aurangabad, Maharastra on 29-7-2010 to her Bangalore address. The contents of the Speed post parcel were printer (1 number), Kitchan blender (1 number) bed spreads (4 numbers). Due to baggage constraints. Complainant sent the above items by speed post and took a flight to Bangalore on 30-7-2010 from Aurangabad. Complainant had paid Rs.806/- to O.P. towards speed post charges. O.P. has issued speed post receipt No. as SP EM406769795IN. Complainant received the speed post articles on 2-8-2010 at 5.45 p.m. Now the grievance of the complainant is after opening the parcel box she came to know that two Jaipuri cotton double bed spreads worth of Rs.2000/-were missing. Immediately complainant lodged the complaint with O.P.2. The endorsement made by O.P.2 dated:3-8-2010 on the complaint copy is produced. Inspite of repeated complaints & requests when O.P. failed to solve her complaint, Complainant approached this Forum for the necessary relief’s.
9. As against the case of the complainant the defence of the O.P. that complainant has received the Speed post article on 2-8-2010 in good condition and no tampering was noticed before delivery by the complainant has no basis. There is no merit in the contention of the OP that complainant must have denied to receive the article if she had any suspicion regarding the condition of the article. Unless parcel is opened complainant is unable to know what contents are missing. Hence contention of the OP that since complainant had opened the article after taking delivery she is not entitled for any compensation and further enquiry is not viable at this stage cannot be accepted.
10. The complainant has sworn to the facts that as the parcel looked tampered she has asked the postman to wait till she opens the parcel. But postman did not heed to her request, he left the place. After opening the parcel complainant found some contents i.e. two bed spreads of the parcel were missing. Immediately complainant called the postman and informed about the contents missing. Postman who came back along with his friend asked the complainant whether he could take back the parcel and send it back. Hence the contention of the O.P. that. Complainant has received the speed post article in good condition cannot be accepted.
11. Further defence of the O.P. that necessary enquiry was conducted and same was replied to the complainant. But in support of its defence O.P. has not produced any report before this Forum. Hence this defence of the OP that it has conducted the enquiry on the complaint made by the complainant has no basis and same cannot be accepted. There is no merit in the defence of the O.P. that just because complainant has opened the article after taking delivery enquiry is not viable at this stage. O.P.2 has received the complaint of the complainant on 3-8-2010. We have perused the documents produced by the complainant. Complainant also sent a mail dated:29-10-2010 to O.P. O.P. in its reply has stated articles should have been insured. O.P. having collected Rs.806/- towards speed post charges cannot escape the liability.
12. The contention of the OPs that the speed post parcel was delivered to the complainant intact and there was no tampering of the seals and missing of any articles cannot be accepted. In case if all the parcel contents were intact and received by the complainant there was no reason for the complainant to approach this Forum and file the complaint claiming the reliefs relating to only two bedspreads. Immediately after opening the parcel she found two bedspreads missing and contacted the concerned postman who delivered the parcel and the said postman came to the residence of the complainant and he was also informed about the missing of the articles. The concerned postman has not filed any affidavit denying the fact of complainant instructing to wait till parcel is opened in his presence and he having left the place and later having visited the residence of the complainant when he was called and informing him about the missing of two bedspreads. OPs failed to produce any materials to show that no contents of the parcel were missing and there was no tampering of the parcel.
13. The learned counsel for the OPs contended that the complainant has not insured the parcel, as such OPs are not liable to pay the value of the two bedspreads stated to have been found missing. In our view at the time of booking parcel itself OPs could have insisted the complainant to insure the articles. Merely because the complainant has not insured the articles, OPs cannot permitted to avoid their liability to pay the amount towards the value of the two bedspreads found missing. There is a duty cast upon the Postal Department to deliver the consignment to the consignee in its original form without causing any damage to the consignment, having accepted the consignment after collecting the required parcel charges. Since the parcel was in the custody of the Postal Department (OPs), the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that some postal staff has removed the bedspreads from the parcel. The complainant has submitted her complaint to the Postal Department on 03.08.2010 regarding missing of the bedspreads, OPs failed to conduct proper enquiry and fix the responsibility on their employees who handled this parcel and solve the grievances of the complainant. The act of OPs in not delivering the speed post parcel intact without loss of any articles to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, we are of the view that OPs are liable to pay the value of two bedspreads found missing from the parcel.
14. The complainant has produced the bill dt.25.07.2010 for having purchased the bedspreads from Rajadhani Handloom House, Aurangabad. As per the said bill, the cost of two Jayapuri Cotton double bedspreads is of Rs.2 X 870=1740. OPs are liable to pay the said amount towards the value of the bedspreads to the complainant.
In a similar case reported in III(2008 CPJ 300 SUB-POSTMASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE, ILKAL V/s Vital, The Hon’ble State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint directing OPs to pay the cost of 12 sarees which were removed from the parcel and compensation of RS.5,000/-. In the said case out of 22 sarees of the parcel sent through the Postal Department 12 sarees were missing. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that OPs are liable to pay the value of the two bedspreads and compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainantt is allowed in part.
The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,740/- being the value of two bed spreads and pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
OPs to comply the order within four weeks from the date of this order.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of July – 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs:
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed in part. O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs.1,740/- being the cost of two bed spreads and pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation charges of Rs.500/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send the copy of this order both to the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of July 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Rk.
