POST.MASTER GENERAL NORTHERN REGION V/S K.CHRISTOPHER
K.CHRISTOPHER filed a consumer case on 31 Mar 2008 against POST.MASTER GENERAL NORTHERN REGION in the Kozhikode Consumer Court. The case no is 395/2006 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Kerala
Kozhikode
395/2006
K.CHRISTOPHER - Complainant(s)
Versus
POST.MASTER GENERAL NORTHERN REGION - Opp.Party(s)
31 Mar 2008
ORDER
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (Notice Under Section-13 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986)(No.68 of 1986) KOZHIKODE consumer case(CC) No. 395/2006
K.CHRISTOPHER
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
POST.MASTER GENERAL NORTHERN REGION
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. K.CHRISTOPHER
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. POST.MASTER GENERAL NORTHERN REGION
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By G. Yadunadhan, President: It is the case of the petitioner that on 1.12.2005 he sent two power of attorneys by speed post service through opposite party to his son at Cayman island. Even after a period of one month the speed post articles were not delivered to his son. Against that he complained before the opposite party. He received a reply on 30.1.2006 offering to conduct immediate enquiry in the matter. But even after a period of four months no reply was received to the petitioner. Petitioner states that the relevancy of the power of attorneys is of obtaining the certificates from Calicut University. The loss of power of attorneys caused heavy loss to the petitioner. On 17.6.2006 the petitioner caused to send a lawyer notice to the opposite party through Advocate Sarath Kumar demanding a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The demand in the said notice was not considered by the opposite party. After this on 28.7.2006 the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut Division sent a letter to the petitioner stating their inability in delivering the articles to the addressee and expressing their willingness to compensate the petitioner by giving a double amount of speed post charges, i.e., Rs.850/-. He requested the petitioner to receive the said amount with a condition to repay the amount to them on receipt of the article. So far no information regarding the speed post article and the addressee has not received the article. The petitioner therefore alleges deficiency of service and negligence against the opposite party. He sustained irreparable loss for which he claimed a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite party entered in appearance and submitted written version admitting the booking of speed post article by the petitioner at Speed Post Centre, Calicut and states the ignorance of the contents of the articles. The opposite party says that they carried the article up to Mumbai and it was correctly handed over to Air France on 2.12.2005 itself, but no response from them. Further enquiry revealed that no records were received in Cayman Airlines. But the opposite party was ready to sanction a sum of Rs.850/- towards compensation to the petitioner which is equal to double the postage originally collected from him. Since the contents of the articles beyond the knowledge of the opposite party, compensation based on nature of contents is unsustainable according to the opposite party. According to the opposite party as per clause 84 of the Post Office Guide, Part 1, the opposite party is exempted by law from all responsibility in the case of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post. The opposite party states about the Gazette Notification that in the event of loss of domestic speed post articles or loss of its contents or damages to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charge paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. That is why the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut sanctioned compensation of Rs.850/- equal to the double the speed post charges collected from the petitioner. The opposite party submits that there was no willful act or default on the part of them. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed. The points arose for consideration: (1) Whether the petition is maintainable and whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the matter? (2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? (3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? (4) What is relief and cost? In this case the petitioner is examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On the side of the opposite party Ext. B1 to B9 were marked. It is admitted by the opposite party that the petitioner sent some postal articles as alleged by speed post service. Now the question is whether it reached to the destination. After receiving the complaint from the petitioner the opposite party made all efforts to trace out the article, but ended in failure. In such circumstances, what is the liability cast upon the opposite party? According to the petitioner the articles, which he sent in the speed post service, are two valuable power of attorneys to his son in Cayman Island. While examining in chief the petitioner explains about the loss he sustained in not getting the article to the destination and requests in furtherance to the compensation, direction may be issued to the opposite party for exhibiting the responsibility of the opposite party in loss of articles during in transit. As per Annexure Rule 6, immunity is claimed in the event of loss, misdelivery or damage during transmission. But it is the admitted case of the opposite party that the article is lost. Hence this Forum has to find that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in delivering the article to the destination. Now the remaining question is whether the petitioner is adequately compensated. This Forum finds that the petitioner has not been adequately compensated. The compensation offered by the opposite party is not at all justifiable. The Gazette Notification, i.e. Annexure Rule 8 explains only about the domestic speed post articles and silent about the international services. So this Forum believes that the compensation awarded to petitioner based on the said notification is jot justifiable. The argument raised by the opposite party pertaining to the compensation basing upon the contents of the postal article is also not justifiable. In this case the petitioner never claims any compensation based upon the articles contained in the speed post. He claims only for the pain and agony sustained on account of the non delivery of the article. Under these circumstances this Forum finds that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2000/- for the mental agony and a sum of Rs.425/- being the value of postal charges remitted by him. This Forum finds that it is fair and justifiable to give direction to the opposite party to make all possible efforts and maximum advertisements with regard to their immunity and responsibility in the event of losing or non delivering the articles and to exhibit relevant provisions of Indian Post Office Act for the awareness of general public both English and in the regional language. In the result we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,000/- for the mental agony and a sum of Rs.425/- being the value of postal charges remitted by him together with a cost of Rs.500/-. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the Complainant: A1 True copy of the lawyer notice sent by the Complainant to the opposite party. A2 True copy of the Receipt of the Postal Registered Letter. A3 True copy of the Postal Acknowledgement Card. A4 True copy of the sanction order No.CR/ISP-78/06 dated 28.7.06. Documents exhibited for the Opposite party: B1 Photocopy of letter No. CCC/ISP-78/05 dated 28.3.06. B2 Photocopy of Reminder No.1 dated 27.5.06. B3 Photocopy of Letter No.INT/INW/324/2006 dated 6.6.2006. B4 Photocopy of Letter No. CR/ISP-78/06 dated 28.7.06 B5 Photocopy of Letter No. CR/ISP-78/06 dated 28.7.06. B6 Photocopy of Annexure Rule 6 B7 Photocopy of Annexure Rule 7 B8 Photocopy of the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 21.1.1999. B9 Photocopy of Order dated 18.9.2002. PW1 Christopher.K. Complainant. Witness examined for the Opposite Party: None. Sd/-President -/True copy/- (Forwarded/By Order) Senior Superintendent.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.