5. Even though the article was delivered to the addressee under clear acquittance, the opposite parties conducted detailed investigations for locating the alleged missing article at all connected offices.  The contents in the cover is not known to the opposite parties at the time of booking of the article and the person who sent the article did not brought to the notice of the opposite parties with regard to the contents in the cover.  The sender Mr. Thomas Jose is the person who paid the prescribed fees for sending the article.  He had not submitted any complaints in this regard before the opposite parties till this date.  Even then, opposite parties took immediate action to get the complaint investigated thoroughly and this complaint was filed before completing the said investigation.  The complainants herein have no locus standi to file this complaint, as they have not availed any paid service from the opposite parties.  The complainants have no case for willful default or fraudulent act against any particular officer of the opposite parties.  Hence and as per Sec. 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  Since the disputed speed post cover was not sent by insured post, the complainants are not entitled to get any compensation.  The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service to the complainants.  With the above contentions, opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 pray for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

           6. The main contentions in the version of the third opposite party is as follows:  The third opposite party admitted that the postal article was delivered on the same day to the first complainant in good condition.  The third opposite party is not aware of the contents in the cover.  After a prolonged time of the delivery of the article, the first complainant made a complaint before the third opposite party on an experimental basis and threatened him to make a remark on the reverse side of the cover.  The complainants have no locus standi to file this complaint as they are not the sender of the article and they do not know what all articles were sent and hence they are not consumers within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  There is no default, negligence, damage, fraudulent act or deficiency of services from any of the opposite parties in this regard and the article was delivered to the addressee in good condition with proper acknowledgment.  This complaint is not maintainable under Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.  The compensation etc. claimed by the complainants are imaginary and baseless and the opposite parties are not liable to pay the same.  With the above contentions, the third opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                   7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points were raised for consideration:

(1)             Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(2)             Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)             Reliefs and Cost?

                    8. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 and Exts.A1 to A7 and Ext.B1.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard also on the basis of the argument notes filed from both side.

                   9. Point No.1:  Since the complainants are the beneficiaries of the articles sent by Speed Post through the opposite parties and as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Forums, the arguments raised by the opposite parties for challenging the maintainability of this complaint is not sustainable and hence we find that this complaint is maintainable before this Forum.

                   10. Point Nos. 2 & 3:  The complainants’ allegation against the opposite parties is that the original SSLC Book of the second complainant sent by Speed Post from New Delhi to the first complainant was lost in transit from the hands of the opposite parties, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainants.  The aforesaid missing of the SSLC book of the second complainant is due to the negligence and deficiency of service of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to the complainants for the same and the complainants prays for allowing the complaint.

                   11. In order to prove the complainants’ case, the first complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 7 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the first complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the Ext and Re-entry Visa in the name of the second complainant.  Ext.A2 is the damaged speed post cover sent by Thomas  Jose addressed to the first complainant.  Ext.A2(a) is the speed post receipt pasted on the reverse side of Ext.A2.  Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the complaint-dated 30.07.2009 submitted by the first complainant before the Customer Care Centre of the second opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the acknowledgment issued by the second opposite party for receiving Ext.A3.  Ext.A5 is the photocopy of the complaint of Thomas Jose, the sender of the speed post cover submitted before the Manager, Speed Post Centre, New Delhi.  Ext. A5(a) is the acknowledgment for the receipt of Ext.A5 complaint endorsed by the Manager of the Speed Post Centre, New Delhi.  Ext.A6 is the Certificate dated 13.10.2009 issued by Asst. Post Master  (Delivery), Hauz Khas, New Delhi showing that the speed post cover was received by him on 25.07.2009 in safe and sound condition.  Ext.A7 is the paper publication dated 07.08.2009 made by the second complainant regarding the missing of the SSLC book published for obtaining duplicate book of her SSLC certificate.  2 witnesses were also examined as PWs. 2 and 3 from the side of the complainants.

                   12. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that they have delivered the speed post cover in good condition to the first complainant at his residence by the delivery agent of the third opposite party.  While delivering the speed post cover, the first complainant issued a receipt also without raising any objections regarding the condition of the cover.  After a lapse of sometime, the first complainant came to the third opposite party and raised a complaint that 3 sides of the cover received by him is opened and the SSLC book of his wife is found missing from the cover and he compelled the third opposite party to put some remarks regarding the complaint of the first complainant and hence the third opposite party made some remarks on the cover as per the compulsion of the first complainant.  According to the opposite parties, the cover was in good condition till delivery of the same to the first complainant.  As per Postal Rules, if any postal cover received in a damaged condition, that cover will not be delivered to the addressee.  Instead an intimation will be given to the addressee regarding the arrival of the postal cover at the post office.  In such cases, the addressees are at liberty either to receive the cover as open delivery or to refuse the cover.  Such a situation was not occurred in this case which shows that the cover was delivered in good condition.  Even then, on the basis of the complaints of the first complaint, they have conducted detailed enquiry regarding the missing of the SSLC book.  But before the completion of the said enquiry, the complainants filed this complaint with an ulterior motive.  Further, they contended that the contents in the cover was not brought to the notice of the opposite parties at any point either at New Delhi or at the office of the third opposite party and the alleged speed post cover was not sent by insured post.  So they are not liable or responsible for the missing of the SSLC book.  With the above contentions, they argued that they have not committed any negligence or deficiency of service and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   13. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence in their favour.  But they produced the acknowledgment receipt issued by the first complainant for the delivery of the speed post cover and it was marked as Ext.B1 through PW1.  They have also cross-examined PWs. 1 to 3.

                   14. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the transaction.  The questions to be decided is whether the SSLC book was entrusted to the opposite parties and whether the said SSLC book was lost from the hands of the opposite parties during its transit.  The deposition of PW1 and the circumstances of this complaint shows that the SSLC book and other related documents were entrusted to the opposite parties.  There is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainants that the second complainant’s SSLC book and other related documents were entrusted to the opposite parties, in the absence of any explanation and in the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of the opposite parties to show that this complaint was filed with an ulterior motive as alleged by the opposite parties.  Further what is the benefit of the complainants in filing a complaint like this against the opposite parties?  So we find that the second complainant’s SSLC book and other related documents were entrusted to the opposite parties. 

                      15. The next question is whether the SSLC book was given to the first complainant?  According to the complainants, the speed post cover was delivered in a damaged condition without the SSLC book and the damaged condition was brought to the notice of the third opposite party before taking the delivery and the weight of the damaged cover was also taken before delivery and the said facts were also recorded by the third opposite party over the cover.  But according to the opposite parties, the speed post cover was not in a damaged condition at the time of delivery and the first complainant had also issued the receipt for the delivery.  The allegation of the damages of the cover and the missing of the SSLC book was brought to the notice of the third opposite party only after taking the delivery of the cover and the endorsement made on the cover by the third opposite party was on the compulsion of the first complainant.  But the opposite parties failed to prove that the endorsement was made on the basis of the compulsion of the second complainant.  Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the third opposite party had reported this matter to any of the higher officials of the third opposite party so far or he had not made any complaints against the first complainant in this regard before any higher officials.  So the contention and argument raised by the opposite parties in this regard is not sustainable.  Ext. A6 certificate issued from Hauz Khas Post Office, New Delhi shows that the speed post article in question has been received in safe and sound condition.  But the said cover was received by the first complainant in a damaged condition.  There is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of PWs.2 and 3, which also support the complainants’ allegations. 

                     16.  In the circumstances, we find that the speed post cover entrusted with the opposite parties in safe and sound condition was delivered in a damaged condition of 3 sides of the cover was opened.  Since the cover was received in such a condition, there is every possibility of missing the contents therein during its transit from New Delhi to the third opposite party’s office.  As per Ext.A7 it is seen that the second complainant had also made a publication in Kerala Kaumudi Daily dated 07.08.2009 about the loss of her SSLC book for obtaining duplicate from the Board of Public Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram.  The opposite parties have also no case against Ext.A7 publication or they have not adduced any evidence against the ulterior motive of the complainants in filing this complaint.  In the circumstances, we find that the SSLC book of the second complainant was not delivered to the first complainant and it was lost from the hands of the opposite parties during its transit from New Delhi to the first complainant and it is a clear deficiency in service.  However, the complainants’ claimed an amount of ` 15 lakhs from the opposite parties under various heads.  But the complainants failed to adduce any evidence to enlighten this Forum for allowing the amount claimed by the complainants.  But we have no doubt about the expenses and mental agony sustained to the complainants in this matter.  Therefore, we find that this complaint can be allowed with modifications:

                   17. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost to the complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are allowed to realise the whole amount with 10% interest per annum from this date till the realisation of the whole amount.

                    Declared in the Open Forum on this the 16^th day of August, 2011.

                                                                                                       (Sd/-)

                                                                                                Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                                  (President)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                 :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainants:

PW1  :         Thomas Babu.

PW2  :         Shaji Samuel.

PW3  :         Sam. K. Mandirathil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:

A1     :         Photocopy of the Ext and Re-entry Visa in the name of the

                     second complainant.

A2     :         Speed post cover sent by Thomas addressed to the first

                     complainant.

A2(a)          :         Speed post receipt pasted on the reverse side of Ext.A2.

A3     :         Photocopy of the complaint-dated 30.07.2009 submitted by the

                     first complainant before the Customer Care Centre of the second

                     opposite party.

A4     :         Acknowledgment issued by the second opposite party for

                     receiving Ext.A3.

A5     :         Photocopy of the complaint of Thomas Jose submitted before the

                    Manager, Speed Post Centre, New Delhi.

A5(a)          :         Acknowledgment for the receipt of Ext.A5 complaint.

A6     :         Certificate dated 13.10.2009 issued by Asst. Post Master 

                     (Delivery), Hauz Khas, New Delhi. 

A7     :         Paper publication dated 07.08.2009 made by the second

                    complainant regarding the missing of the SSLC. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties  :  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :         Acknowledgment receipt issued by the first complainant for the   

                     delivery of the speed post cover.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                                                     Senior Superintendent              

Copy to:- (1) Thomas Babu, Vanukunnil House, Choorakodu P.O.,

                       Pathanamthititta Dist., Pin – 691 551.

(2)  The Postmaster General, PMG Junction,

              Thiruvananthapuram.

(3)  The Supdt. of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Division,

              Pathanamthitta.

(4)  The Postmaster, Choorakodu Post Office, Adoor – 691 551.

(5)  The Manager, Speed Post Center, New Delhi – 110 001.

(6)  The Stock File.