IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari : Member Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this the 29th day of March 2010 CC/163/2006 Jayasudha.P.V. ‘Pournami’, P.O.Ramanthali, Taliparamba Taluk Complainant (Rep.byAdv.K.V.Ganesan) 1. Post Master General, Northern Region, Kozhikode. 2. The Superintendent of Post office, Kannur Dist. 3. The Post Master, Post office, Opposite parties Payyannur. 4. Chief Post Master General, Union of India, New Delhi. O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. One lakh and the cost of this proceedings. The case of the complainant in brief is as follow: complainant sent a consignment to Calicut University, on speed post through 3rd opposite party. The consignment contained application for registering for P.G Degree, Examination, and the original of B.A Degree certificate, mark list and Chelan receipt. But the same was not reached to Calicut University. Complainant has lodged a complaint and reply received stating that enquiry is being conducted. But they have not taken any remedial measure so far. Lawyer notice was sent on 12.5.05 but they have not paid any compensation. Later on 27.6.05 the 2nd opposite party sent a format for compensation. On 19.7.2005 application for compensation submitted in the format. But they have not paid anything till date. Complainant was denied admission in the first year M.A examination. Complainant has lost her original mark list, certificate and the Chelan of Rs.1130/- and al also the course fee she has remitted. The complainant lost one year in her studies, which is impossible to make up. Complainant has gone to University for at least 8 times in search of the consignment whereby she has suffered an expenses of Rs.2000/-. With this incident the complainant has lost her interest for studies. This has caused irreparable catastrophe in the life of the complainant. Even after sending the format for compensation they have not send any compensation. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and fled version. The case of opposite party in brief is as follows; complainant had booked a speed post Article addressed to the Director, Distance Education Calicut University from Payyannur post office on 17.8.04. On 4.2.05 she had lodged complaint stating that her speed post article had not been delivered to the addressee. On receipt of complaint a detailed enquiries had been conducted but the article could not be traced. When that much valuable article is sent it has to be insured. As per section 6 of Indian Postal office act 1898 the Govt. is exempted from any liability for loss, mis delivery or delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. Section 3 is not derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In view of the statutory provisions the complainant is not entitled to any compensation as sought in the complaint, and the complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complaint is entitled to the relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1, DW1, and Exts.A1 to 11. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly complainant had booked a speed post article addressed to the Director, Distance Education, and Calicut University from Payyannur Post office on 17.8.04. The case of the complaint is that the consignment contained Registration application for P.G Degree examination, mark list and Chelan receipt. But the same was not reached to the addressee. Complaint lodged but there was no result except the intimation that enquiry is being conducted. Lawyer notice was sent but they have not paid compensation. But 2nd opposite party sent a format for submitting application for compensation. Even after sending the format filled opposite party did not pay any compensation. The opposite parties admitted almost all the relevant facts but seeking shelter under section 6 of the Indian Post office act 1898 and contending that no officer of the post office shall incur any liability for any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. The opposite party admitted that on receiving the complaint from the Complainant detailed enquiries had been conducted but the consignment could not be traced. The opposite party’s side fully depended upon section 6 of the Indian Post office act 1898. They have nothing to say other than that they have conducted enquiry but found missing the above said consignment. The pleading and the evidence adduced by the complainant together with the admission of opposite parties proved the case of the complainant fully well that the consignment sent by the complainant by speed post did not reach to the addressee, the director Distance Education, Calicut University. We have no hesitation to hold that the non delivery of the consignment to proper person is undoubtedly a deficiency in service on his part of opposite parties. The degree of deficiency increased to great extent on keeping sent without acting upon the application submitted by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that complainant submitted the application for compensation in the format sent by opposite party. There is no doubt, the non entertainment of application for compensation submitted by the complainant in the format sent by opposite party is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. . The deficiency in service that has been aroused out of non entertainment of application for compensation has not been protected under section 6 of Indian Post office Act. Format is sent by opposite party, What is the reason for not considering the application for compensation has not been explained by the opposite party, which cut the root of defence under the umbrella of section 6 against liability that arose out of deficiency in service from non consideration of compensation. Hence we have considered opinion that this alone is sufficient to fix liability on the shoulder of opposite party. When this being the position, the findings of the Hon’ble National Commission in the post Master, Tapan post office and Another vs. Nihar Mahalat reported in 2001 CTJ 222(CP (SCDRC) play an important role in determining the liability. The facts in the above cited case, in brief are as follows; The complaint was selected by Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Mumbai, to appear for written test on 16.3.08 for which the concerned company sent a call letter for written test by post on 26.2.08. The complainant received the said letter on 10.4.2008 thereby denying the complainant to appear in the test, for which a big opportunity was lost for the complainant. The learned District Forum observed that the complainant was a consumer as per provisions of Consumer protection act and that there was an abnormal delay of about 41 days in delivering the letter to the complainant which has remained unexplained and accordingly there was deficiency of service at the instance of opposite parties/postal authorities. The Hon’ble National Commission found that due to abnormal delay in sending the call letter to the complainant, the complainant has definitely lost a golden opportunity to sit for the written test and in this aspect further found that the learned District Forum was justified in holding that this abnormal delay definitely indicates a deficiency in service at the instance of postal authorities. The above explained case is a suitable case applicable to the case in hand. The above explained case is one in which deficiency in service found against postal authority. On the reason for delay of delivery about 41 days whereas, the case in hand is one in which the consignment is lost for ever, which definitely amounts to deficiency in service at any angle. The loss of degree certificate mark list, etc is serious concern. She lost one year for writing the examination. To get the duplicate certificate is a time consuming affair by which the very purpose for which it was sent has become lapsed. It is a difficult position, and of very much desperation, which the loss cannot be measured in terms of money. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of opening that complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.20, 000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.500/- as cost of this proceedings. The issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.20, 000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Speed Post receipt issued by OP 2.Letter dt.9.2.05 issued from Customer care centre. A3.Copy of the letter dt.3.3.05 sent to 2nd OP. A4.Letter dt.11.3.05 issued by 1st OP A5.Copy f the letter dt.1q1.4.05 sent to 1st OP A6to A8.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to Ops, Postal receipts and Ads A9.Letter dt.27.6.05 issued by 2nd OP A10.Applicatin submitted by complainant for compensation. A11.Postal receipt Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined fro the opposite parties DW1.K.G.Balakrishnan /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P, Member | HONORABLE GOPALAN.K, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE JESSY.M.D, Member | | 
