Sri.P. Raveendran-Member

Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Brief of the complaint is as follows:

The complainant is a worker of Parisan Tea Estate, Thalapuzha while he was doing his work he sustained an injury on his leg. For getting treatment benefit he sent a letter to the Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram through opposite party on 10.3.2008. The opposite party has not delivered the letter to the addressee. He spent Rs.20,000/- for treatment. The medical certificate along with the letter was sent. So he prayed legal aid for the loss sustained to him.

2. On getting notice the Superintendent of Post Offices Thalassery division has filed version since the postal department is authorised him to conduct cases against his subordinates. In the version he has admitted that a registered letter with acknowledgment due addressed to the

Labour Commissioner, Labour Office, Thiruvananthapuram was booked at Manathavady on 10.3.2008 and dispatched to its destination through Calicut RMS on 10.3.2008 itself. One complaint dated 26.3.2008 was received by Opposite party from the petitioner, alleging non receipt of acknowledgment card and requesting to intimate the date of delivery. That complaint was forwarded to the Manager, Customer Care Centre, Thalasery by the opposite party. It was received at customer care centre Thalassery on 29.3.08. An enquiry conducted and revealed that the registered letter was delivered to the addressee on 12.3.08 under proper acknowledgment. The date of delivery was intimated to the complainant on 4.4.08. The acknowledgment card of the registered articles delivered are returned to the sender as ordinary articles. No records are being maintained in respect of ordinary articles during their transmission by the post or at the delivery point. Hence the disposal of the acknowledgment card could not be found out. There was no wilful act or default on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has immunity under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. In the above circumstances the opposite party is to be exonerated.

3. In the above circumstances the following points are to be considered.

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2) Cost and compensation?

4. Point No.1: The complainant has filed chief affidavit PW1 was cross examined for opposite party. In the chief affidavit he has stated as stated in the complaint. He further stated to direct opposite party to give Rs.20,000/- and Rs.250/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards litigation cost. Ext. A1 is also marked on the side of the complainant. Ext. A1 is the photo copy of the postal receipt RLAD A 5124 addressed to Labour Commissioner, Labour Office Thiruvananthapuram. Superintendent of post offices Thalassery filed chief affidavit. (OPW1) He was cross examined by the counsel of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B4 were marked. Ext. B1is the copy of the complainant sent by the complaint to the opposite party alleging non-receipt of acknowledgment card of Manathavady RLAD 5124 and requesting to intimate the date of delivery of the RL. According to him that the complaint was forwarded by the postmaster Manathavady to the Manager, Customer Care Centre, Thalassery. An enquiry was conducted and revealed that the said RL was delivered to the addressee on 12.3.08. True copy of the web reply is produced. That is marked as Ext. B2. True copy of the delivery slip received from the office of delivery is produced. That is marked as Ext. B3. The date of delivery was intimated to the complainant on 4.4.08 vide letter No.CRF2/111/267 dt.4.4.08. A true copy of the said reply is produced. That is marked as Ext. B4. There is no dispute that the complainant sent a registered letter to labour commissioner Labour Office, Thiruvananthapuram though opposite party on 10.3.2008. According to the complainant the acknowledgment card is not received back . So he filed a complaint before opposite party. On getting the complaint Opposite party send it to customer care centre Thalassery Ext. B2 shows that the above RL was delivered to addressee on 12.3.08. Ext. B3 is the delivery slip which shows that the RL was delivered to the addressee on 12.3.08. Ext. B4 shows that the above fact intimated to the complainant on 4.4.2008 by the Manager customer care centre Thalassery which is admitted by the complainant at the time of cross-examination. Opposite party claimed immunity under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act ie, Exception from liability for loss, mis delivery, delay or damage. The section says that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, mis delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Such immunity given to the department was upheld by the Hon. National Commission in RP No. 986/96. The second part of section 6 deals with individual liability of the postal employees but states that no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Here the complainant has no such case. His complaint is that the RL sent by him is not delivered to the addressee. Ext. B2 and B3 shows that the RL sent on 10.3.2008 by the complainant was delivered to the addressee on 12.3.08 and that fact is also intimated to the complainant. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

5. Point No.2: Point No.1 is found again st the complainant. Hence there is no order as to cost and compensation.

In the result the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open Forum on 21^st day of November, 2008.