The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition under Section 12 filed by one Rina Das, W/o.- Santosh Das of village Durganagar Colony, P.O. Islampur, dist. Uttar Dinajpur which was registered as Consumer Case No. 50/17 in this Forum.
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant purchased an Insurance policy from Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Limited Company and the policy matured amount was Rs. 20,000/-. After maturity the Company sent a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- by registered post to the complainant. But the envelop in which a cheque of Rs.20,000/- was not delivered to the complainant.
Thereafter, the complainant contacted the O.Ps. but ultimately there was no fruitful result for which on 07/03/2017 the complainant filed a petition under the provisions of Right to Information Act to the O.Ps.
But, inspite of receiving such application under the provisions of RTI Act the Public Information Officer of the O.Ps did not give any reply within the time of 30 days. Thereafter, the complainant filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority informed the complainant that the postal article was delivered to one Sunarta Singh.
It has been confirmly asserted by the complainant that there is no relation between the complainant and Sunarta Singh. Sunarta Singh is not known to the complainant nor does Sunarta Singh reside within the area in which the complainant resides.
It was the duty of the O.Ps to deliver the article to the proper person but actually the article was not delivered to the proper person that is the complainant.
Due to the defective services of the O.Ps the insurance amount has gone to another person for which the complainant is come to the Consumer Forum for realization of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- that is the matured value of the policy.
The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing W.V. denying all the material allegations as labeled against the O.Ps contending interalia that the instant case is not maintainable and the suit is barred by law of limitation. The suit is also barred by principles of estoppels, waiver, and acquiescence.
The definite defence case is that the article bearing No. RM924723878IN was addressed to another Rina Das, Durganagar, P.O.- State Firm Colony. No other details were mentioned on the article like mobile no, care of etc.
The further defence case is that there was one more Rina Das living at Durganagar, P.O. State Firm Colony. On receiving the article from the P.O. on 17/09/2015, it was taken for delivery to another Rina Das, Durganagar, P.O. State Firm Colony who was absent at that time of delivery.
The further defence case is that as per verbal instruction from the said addressee that in her absence all her letters will be delivered to Sunarta Singh on her behalf. On 17-09-2015 the said letter was collected by one Sunarta Singh on behalf of Rina Das.
The said article was collected by Sunarta Singh on behalf of Rina Das who was residing in the same locality with same name. On enquiry it was found that the article was for Rina Das, Durganagar, P.O. State Farm Colony and the same was delivered to another Rina Das. Durganagar, P.O. State Firm Colony. In the W.V. it has been mentioned that there was a mistake on the part of GDSMD of SF Colony.
That, O.P.No.1 and 2 performed their duty as such the case is liable to be dismissed.
During trial the complainant Rina Das was examined as P.W.1 and she was cross examined. One Monoranjan Roy was also examined as P.W.2. Smt. Bela Roy was examined as OPW1 and she was cross examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the O.Ps.
It is to be mentioned that several opportunities given to the OPs but the OPs did not adduce any evidence to their defence.
- Now the point for determination whether the complainant is entitled to get an order from this Forum or not.
- Whether there was a latches and deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in respect of delivery of the registered letter.
D E C I S I O N W I T H R E A S O N S:
It is not denied by the O.Ps that no registered letter was issued to the complainant. Rather it has been admitted that one registered letter bearing article no. RM924723878IN was addressed to Rina Das, Durganagar, P.O.- State Farm Colony. But ultimately the complainant (Rina Das), W/o.- Santosh Das of Durganagar Colony did not receive the article in which there was a cheque of Rs.-20,000/-was collected by one more addressed (Rina Das) as regard to the mature amount.
But the main disputes arises that no letter was actually delivered to Rina Das. In explanation the O.P. has stated in W.V. that one more Rina Das living in Durganagar, P.O.- State Farm Colony and the same letter was delivered to another Rina Das, Durganagar, State Farm Colony. At that time she was absent as such it was delivered to one Sunarta Singh. As there was a verbal instruction on behalf of Rina Das to receive all her letters including Registered post during her absent. Though, the Postal authority did not file any written under taking that Rina Das authorized any postal peon that all the letters were delivered to Sunarta Singh in her absence. So, definitely it was a latches on the part of the Postal Peon why he delivered the letter to Sunarta Singh. Though, the complainant is raised objection that in her locality there is no another lady known by Rina Das. In her cross examination it is clearly stated that as I reside at village Durganagar Colony, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. But no question was put by the Ld Lawyer of the O.P. that there was another lady known by the name of Rina Das in the locality. So, the story as advanced by the O.P. that another Rina Das was residing at the locality where the complainant resides is not at all believable. Where, the complainant was examined one Monoranjan Roy who stated that there is no relation between Sunarta Singh and the complainant. He further stated that no person known by the name Sunarta Singh. In the cross examination nothing has come out by the Ld. defence Lawyer only mere denial. So, on considering such facts and circumstances it is found that the registered letter was not deliver to the complainant and it has been stated that the registered letter was delivered to another Rina Das which is completely a gross negligence on the part of the postal peon and deficiency of service on the part of the Postal Department, which is the most important department of Govt Of India. This forum is not disputing the contents of the enveloped article whether there was a cheque of Rs.20,000/- or there was a blank paper or not. The main dispute is that the registered letter was not delivered to the complainant for which she is entitled to get compensation. The postal Department should be cautious in future as regards of the delivery of registered letters and other valuable articles, so that no innocent person can suffer for the latches and negligent Act of the Postal Department.
C.F. paid is corrected.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D:
That the instant case being No. CC 50/17 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs. but with cost.
The complainant is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- as the matured value of insurance policy. Besides that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost and Rs.30,000/- for mental pain and agony and the total amount comes to Rs.60,000/-.
The O.Ps are directed to pay the amount within 45 days from the date of order failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 5 % per annum from the date of order. It is to be mentioned that due to the latches of the postal peon, the entire postal Department can not suffer. Initially the Postal Department will pay the amount within the time. Thereafter, the Superintendent of post Offices will deduct the amount from the salary of the postman who is under the direct control of Superintendent of post offices, Dakshin Dinajpur. The Superintendent of Post offices will deduct the amount from the said postal peon from his monthly salary by way of monthly installment as per provisions of law after giving an opportunity to the concerned postal peon. The deduction cannot exceed the limit as envisaged in law.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Post Offices at Balurghat for information and taking necessary action.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
