Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/18/451

Dhiji B - Complainant(s)

Versus

Postal Master - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

     SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN          : PRESIDENT

    SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR        : MEMBER

                                SRI.VIJU.V.R.                       : MEMBER

                                                  

CC.NO.451/2018 (Filed on : 24/12/2018)

ORDER DATED : 19/09/2022

 

COMPLAINANT

Diji.B, “Ushus”,

Arayoor.P.O, Kochottukonam,

Amaravila (via), Neyyattinkara- 695 122

 

(Party in person)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Postmaster,

Post Office, Kaimanam,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 040

 

2. The Superintendent of Post Office,

Thiruvananthapuram South – 695 036

 

3. Chief Postmaster General, Kerala,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 033

 

(By Sandeep .R.P, Authorised Rep.

For Consumer Cases,

GPO, Thiruvananthapuram)

ORDER

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR  :MEMBER

           1.     The complainant had received the article only on 07/02/2017 and the article booked at Kaimanam.P.O on 01/02/2017. The complainant had prefrred a complaint to the second opposite party on 08/02/2017 and got reply dated 17/04/2017 that delay occurred due to some technical snag and only the sender of the article is eligible for compensation. Dissatisfied with this reply the complainant preferred complaint to third opposite party. Reply given by the second opposite party dated 22/11/2017 on behalf of third opposite party explaining the stage by stage movement of the article which was also not convincing to the complainant. The letter registered on 01/02/2017 was received at national speed post Hub on 02/02/2017 due to harthal on 01/02/2017. Due to KSRTC strike on 03/02/2017 the bag closed by NSH on 04/02/2017 could be despatched to Amaravila only on 04/02/2017. The article was further despatched to Arayur post office on 04/02/2017 and intimation was served to the complainant on 04/02/2017 and the house was closed. The next day the letter delivered to complainant on 05/02/2017. But the dated stamp on the postal cover revealed that the letter sent to Arayur Post office on 06/02/2017 and on that day the postman came to the house. So the complainant had sent letter to the third opposite party on 05/02/2017. But the third opposite party had sent the reply stating same facts of the earlier reply. The acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

          2.       Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions that the complainant is residing under the delivery jurisdiction of Arayur Branch Post Officer under Amaravila Sub Post Office. The article under complaint was not a letter relating to any appointment but was a letter sent by the Legal Metrology Department to the complainant. The disputed speed post article was not detained at the booking office as alleged by the complainant. There had no admission on the part of the second opposite party that the article was taken to the residence of the complainant on 04/02/2017 as mentioned in his complaint The reply does not specify that the postman visited the complainant’s house on 04/02/2017. However, the mistake in the date of delivery noted as 06/02/2017 mentioned in the aforesaid letter has been corrected as 07/02/2017 in the reply subsequently given by the third opposite party. It is true that a complaint was preferred to the Chief Postmaster General, as third opposite party. A detailed enquiry was conducted and reply was given to the complainant. The article under complaint booked at Kaimanam P.O on 01/02/2017. Due to KSRTC strike on 03/02/2017 was received on 02/02/2017 due to harthal on 01/02/2017 the bag closed by NSH on  02/02/2017 could be despatched to Amaravila only on 04/02/2017. The article was further despatched to Arayur Branch Post Office and intimation was served to the complainant on 06/02/2017. The article was finally delivered to the complainant on 07/02/2017. It was further submitted that 05/20/2017 was Sunday. A copy of the reply given to the complainant by the second opposite party.  As such the grievance of the complainant was addressed by the opposite parties without delay.

          3.       Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents marked as Exts.P1 to P3. Opposite parties filed chief affidavit. Documents were marked as Exts.D1 to D4. Complainant examined as PW1.

4.Issues to be considered are :

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief and cost?

 

5.Issues I & II

          We perused relevant documents on record. Ext.P1 is the original cover of the registered article which shows that intimation given on 06/02/2017. Ext.P2 is the reply given by the second opposite party. Ext.P3 is the reply given by third opposite party to complainant. Ext.D1 is the copy of the letter given by the complainant. Exts.D2 & D3 are the copies of reply given to the complainant. In Ext.D4 opposite parties stated that the article booked on 01/02/2017 and has been delivered on 07/02/2017. Opposite parties stated that as there is delay in delivery as already intimate and the sender can claim eligible compensation as per rules for the delivery of the article. There was no evidence produced by both parties to prove the  harthal and strike. The first contention raised by the opposite parties that the complainant has not availed any service for consideration from the opposite parties and will not come under the definition of consumer. But the complainant is the beneficiary and hence he is the consumer under Consumer Protection Act. The article booked under speed post to delivered as early as possible. But the opposite parties had delivered the article to the complainant after five days. The opposite parties had not produced evidence to disprove the case of the complainant.

               In view of the above discussions, we find that the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

              In the result, compliant partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings

               A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

               Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 19^th day of September 2022.

 

                                                                                     Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN            : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                       Sd/-

PREETHA.G.NAIR        : MEMBER

 

                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                            VIJU.V.R: MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.451/2018

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                               - Diji.B

List of Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Copies of application of complainant

Ext.P2                   - Copy of letter from Department of Posts, India

Ext.P3                   - Copy of letter from Department of Posts, India

List of witness for the opposite party- NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties

Ext.D1                  - Copy of complaint dated 06/11/2017

Ext.D2                  - Copy of reply given to the complainant

Ext.D3                  - Copy of letter from Department of Posts, India

Ext.D4                  - Copy of reply given by third opposite party

Court Exhibits      - NIL

 

 

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                             PRESIDENT