DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st day of October  2012 

Present:  Smt.Seena.H, President

            : Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

            : Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member             Date of Filing : 08/06/2012

CC No.101/2012

Shoukathali Koppath,

S/o.Unneenkutty Sahib,

Koppath Veedu,

South Thrithala,

Thrithala (PO),

Palakkad – 679 534                              -        Complainant

(By Party in Person)

Vs 

1.Postman,

   Shoranur Post Office,

   Shoranur (PO) – 679 121

2.Post Master,

   Shoranur Post Office,

   Shoranur (PO), - 679 121                             -        Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT

 Complaint in brief :

Complainant sent an application under Right to Information Act addressed to DYSP office, Shoranur by post on 21/5/12. The said letter was returned to the sender on 25/5/2012 with endorsement “No such name of addressee at DYSP office. Hence return to sender”. In the seal affixed it was marked “not known”. Complainant has written the address promptly. Even then  opposite parties failed to deliver  the same to the addressee. The act of opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

Opposite parties filed version contending the following:

Complainant has not included Union of India in the party array and hence complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Opposite parties admits receipt of the registered letter No.RL721581013IN addressed to the State Public Information Officer, Office of DYSP, Shoranur. According to opposite party, the same was entrusted for delivery to Balasubramanian, Postman on 22/5/2012. When the postman approached the DYSP office, the Sub Inspector of Police informed the postman that there is no officer designated as “The State Public Information Officer” at DYSP office, Shoranur and hence requested to return the registered letter. Hence it was endorsed “No such name of addressee at DYSP office based on enquiries”. The article was returned to sender on 23/5/2012 with Rubber Stamp impression “Not known”. As per Director General (PO&I), Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications & IT letter No.2/07/2009-PO dated 30/7/2009, the reasons for non delivery should be indicated only by use of standard remarks such as ‘refused’, ‘Not known”, “Left India” etc., In the above case, the post office selected the most appropriate remark “Not Known”. Further  contented that complainant has claimed compensation without any basis. In view of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1989, postal department cannot be made liable for payment of any compensation in delay or non delivery caused due to circumstances beyond control and hence prays for dismissal of complaint.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A5, Ext.B1 and the oral testimony of DW1.

Now the issues that arise for consideration are

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?

Issues 1 & 2

Receipt of the registered letter at Shoranur Post Office is admitted. It is also not in dispute that the concerned postman approached the addressee mentioned in the letter. According to opposite parties, the Sub Inspector of Police at the DYSP office informed that there is no such addressee at his office. Complainant has submitted that he has received letter from the very same address several times. Ext.A4 produced to prove the same. The Sub Inspector of Police, examined as DW1 has deposed with respect to the said issue as follows:

2012 May 22\v Public Information Officesd  address sNbvXpsIm­v Hcp   Letter postman sIm­ph¶v ImWn¨ncp¶p. Øncambn hcp¶ postman Xs¶bmWv h¶Xv. Rm³  Postmant\mSv Rm\nXv hm§n¡nà F¶pw,  CAbmWv  Assistant Public Information Officer F¶pw, AhÀ¡v sImSp¡Wsa¶pw ]dªp.  CAA¶v leave Bbncp¶p F¶mWv HmÀ½. ]n¶oSv  postman CAs\ It­m F¶v F\n¡dnbnÃ.

Further deposed that “State Public Information Officer F¶  Post D­v. AXv   DYSPBWvv.

From the deposition it is clear that there is a post of State Public Information Officer at DYSP office. DW1 has refused to accept the same stating CA is the authoritative person to accept it. whether postman has approached the CA or not he is not aware.

From the available evidence on record it is clear that there is a post of State Public Information Officer at DYSP office, Shoranur and opposite party failed to deliver the same to the addressee which amounts to clear deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party, for which 2^nd opposite party is vicariously liable.

Now regarding the exemption under Section 6 of Post Office Act, which read as follows:

Section 6:- Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage:- The Govt. shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay 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 Govt. as here in after provided 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 of default.

Going through the provision we understand that the said provision protects only bonafide act of the officers and not willful act of default. DW1 has clearly stated that CA is the authoritative person to receive the said letter in the absence of DYSP. 1^st opposite party failed to deliver the same to the addressee. 1^st opposite party ought to have made further enquiries with the CA. Section 6 will not protect the willful act of 1^st opposite party. In view of the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

Now with respect to the relief entitled  to the complainant, complainant has claimed Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that complainant incurred any loss on account of the act of opposite parties. There is no pleadings in the complaint with respect to this aspect. Hence we are of the view that a nominal amount of compensation will meet the ends of justice.

In the result, complaint partly allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/-  (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st  day of October  2012.

    Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

   Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

    Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member 

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –Copy of letter received from DYSP office to prove  the address

Ext.A2 – Postal receipt  

Ext.A3 – Acknowledgement card

Ext.A4 – Letter dated 17/4/12 received from DYSP office, Shoranur to the

             complainant.

Ext.A5 – Letter dated 30/6/12 received from DYSP office, Shoranur to the

            complainant.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – True copy of Statement of K.P.Balasubramanian, Postman

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

DW1 – T.Rajan

Cost

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.