Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1021/2013

SUNITA METHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST MASTER. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 1021/13

 

Smt. Sunita Mehta

W/o Shri Surender Mehta

R/o D-55 ‘A’, Street No. 3

laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                       ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

Senior Post Master

Krishna Nagar, H.O.

Delhi – 110 051                                                               …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 25.11.2013

Judgement Reserved on: 23.08.2018

Judgement Passed on: 31.08.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Sunita Mehta against Senior Post Master, Krishna Nagar (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service and negligence. 

2.         The facts in brief are that there was some illegal and unauthorized construction being carried in the neighbourhood of the complainant in connivance with Govt. officials, for which she had sent complaint to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor for immediate action.  It has been stated that the complainant was assured by the officials of Hon’ble LG office that immediate action will be taken and the complainant will be informed accordingly.  It has been further stated that the complainant went to LG office when she did not receive any response, she was shocked to learn that officials of Hon’ble LG had already taken action on her complaint and had forwarded the same to EDMC for necessary action and information regarding the same had also been sent to the complainant vide speed post booking no. ED272068379IN on 30.04.2011 and as per service report the same was served upon the complainant which was not actually delivered to the complainant.

            The complainant requested the OP to provide the details of service report upon whom the service was effected.  The complainant has also alleged that the postman had acted in negligent manner and delivered the article to some other person by manipulating complainant’s signature.  The complainant has alleged that due to non receipt of information sent by the office of LG, the complainant has lost her valuable right of action, as she could not meet the officials of EDMC well in time to stop unauthorized construction by the builder.  Several letters dated 30.08.2011, 19.12.2011, 12.01.2012, 10.03.2012, 20.04.2012 as well as applications under Right to Information Act, 2005 were written to OP for compensating her for the negligence of Postman of OP. 

            Legal notice dated 27.10.2013 was sent which remained unreplied.

            The complainant has annexed copy of her election I-card, copy of letter dated 30.08.2011 written to OP, copy of letter dated 19.12.2011, copy of RTI application of date 12.01.2012 to Senior Post Master, complaint to Chief Post Master (General) dated 10.03.2012, copy of reply to RTI application dated 15.02.2012, RTI application dated 20.04.2012, order of first and second appeal to the Information Commissioner, incomplete information supplied by OP, inquiry report of the inspector of OP, information given by LG office with copy of speed post booking slip, letter dated 18.10.2013, legal notice dated 27.10.2013 and speed post booking slip alongwith the complaint.    

 3.        WS was filed on behalf of OP upon service of summons where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as the present complaint involved complex questions of fact which needed trial, thus, could not be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Consumer Protection Act; the delivery of a speed post article is address specific i.e. speed post article is to be delivered either to the addressee or any other person who takes delivery of article at the address as per office memorandum bearing no.  57-01/2010-BD&MD dated 01.06.2010.

            It was further submitted that OP was exempted from liability under Section 6 of Indian Postal act, 1898 which read as

“6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage:- The (Government) shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to , any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provide; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default”.

            The complaint was also bad for mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties, as against the postman, complainant had alleged fraud/forgery.  Rest of the contents of the complaint  have been denied.

4.         Complainant filed her evidence by way of affidavit where she has deposed on oath the averments made in her complaint.  She has relied on the annexures, annexed with the complaint and has exhibited them as copy of speed post reply note (Ex.CW-1/1 & 1/2), letter dated 30.08.2011 to Senior Post Master & CPIO (Ex.CW-1/3), letter dated 05.11.2011 to Appellate Authority, Postal department alongwith postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/3A), letter dated to 07.06.2012 to First Appellate Authority, Chief Postal Master General (Ex.CW-1/3B), letter dated 19.12.2011 (Ex.CW-1/4), letter dated 12.01.2012 (Ex.CW-1/5), letter dated 10.03.2012 (Ex.CW-1/6), letter dated 2.04.2012 (Ex.CW-1/7), reply to RTI dated 31.07.2012 (Ex.CW-1/7A), letter dated 29.01.2014 to CIC (Ex.CW-1/7B), letter to the DPS (O) (Ex.CW-1/7C), letter dated 20.01.2014 to Shri A Ahmed, FAA/DPS (Ex.CW-1/7D), copy of order of CIC dated 30.10.2013 (Ex.CW-1/8), letter dated 07.10.2013 to Indian Postal Department (Ex.CW-1/8A), order of CIC dated 17.12.2013 (Ex.CW-1/9), letter of CIC dated 20.01.2014 (Ex.CW-1/10), copy of legal notice dated 27.10.2013 (Ex.CW-1/10A) and copy of letter dated 27.12.2013 to Chief Post Master General (Ex.CW-1/11). 

            Shri C.P. Sarswat, Senior Post Master, Krishna Nagar was examined on behalf of OP who has reiterated contents of their reply on oath.  He has got exhibited office memorandum bearing no. 57-01/2010-BD&MD dated 01.06.2010 issued by Ministry of communications and Information Technology as Ex.OPW1/1, true copy of receipt of speed post article bearing no. ED272068379IN booked on 30.04.2011, Computer generated proof of delivery and copy of bundle of delivery list dated 02.05.2011 as Ex.OPW1/2 to Ex.OPW1/4, copy of representation dated 30.08.2011 by the complainant and reply dated 19.09.2011 as Ex.OPW1/5 and Ex.OPW1/6, copy of the speed post reply note no. SPC/CCC/TD-3823/11 dated 04.11.2011 as Ex.OPW1/7, copies of letter dated 15.02.2012 and 12.04.2012 as Ex.OPW1/8 and Ex.OPW1/9.

5.       We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP.  Perusal of the file reveals that the complainant was aggrieved by the non delivery of letter sent by Hon’ble LG office.  Firstly, deciding upon the preliminary objections that complainant was not a consumer as the speed post was not booked by the complainant.  If we look at the Sec. 2(d) (ii) which reads as:

“ [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]”.

 

            Therefore, the complainant being the beneficiary of the services is a consumer.

            As far as non-joinder or mis-joinder of postman as party was concerned, the postman is employee of OP, thereby OP is vicariously liable of acts/omissions of its employee.  Thus, both preliminary objections are decided against OP.

            Now, deciding on merits, the documents relied by both the parties. i.e. Ex.OPW1/4 and Ex.CW1/2, which is the bundle of delivery list which bears the signatures “Sunita” in English and at the same time if we look at Ex.OPW1/9 which is the letter written dated 12.04.2012 by OP to the complainant which reads:

Point No. 3 – As per statement of Shri Ganpat Singh that a person going upstairs in your premises told him that he knew Sunita Mehta.  Hence he delivered the article No.                      ED 272068379IN under receipt to the person claiming to have known to you.

Point No. 7 – Postman does not remember the name of the recipient of the above mentioned article.

 

            Combined reading of Ex.OPW1/4 and Ex.OPW1/9 makes clear that the letter was delivered to someone else other than the complainant the plea of OP that as per office memorandum dated 01.06.2010 which states that delivery is address specific does not come to their aid as the postman,    Shri Ganpat Singh, was negligent in performing his duty, at one hand, the signatures put on proof of delivery bear “Sunita” and on the other hand, its stated that the postman delivered it to someone else at the given address.  This implies that the postman did not bother to verify the identity of the person to whom he handed over the letter.  Thus, Section 6 also does not come to the aid of OP as the loss was due to the willful act or default of the postman.  Therefore, we hold OP was deficient in providing services to the complainant.  However, the complainant has placed nothing on record to quantify the damages suffered by her due to non delivery of letter.

            Thus, we deem fit that compensation of Rs. 30,000/- shall be sufficient to compensate the complainant for deficiency in service on part of OP.  Out of the said amount, OP shall be entitled to recover Rs. 20,000/- from the salary/pension of the delinquent postman Shri Ganpat Singh.

            Order be complied within 30 days from the date of order.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                         (SUKHDEV SINGH)

       Member                                                                                 President