CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North consumer case(CC) No. 39/2006
Tomy MG
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Postmaster,MMC PO
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
ORDER By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The contents of the complaint in brief is as follows: The Complainant had been conducting a STD booth for the last 4 years. The Telephone bill dated 5.12.2005 was sent from MMC Post Office on 5.12.2005. The bill amount was to be remitted on 13.12.2005 that was the last date for payment. The Complainant received the bill on 15.12.2005. The telephone connection was detached in the evening of 13.12.2005 after information of disconnection. The delay in delivery of the Telephone bill resulted in disconnection. The delayed delivery of the telephone bill by the Post Office is a deficiency in service. The Complainant could pay the bill only on 16.12.2005 morning, after three days from (Contd. . . . . . 2) - 2 - the date of payment due to the non delivery of the Telephone bill in time. The phone connection was cut. The loss incurred due to the disconnection of phone connection is Rs.1,000/-. This is to be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- is also to be paid. The Opposite Party made their appearance upon notice and version filed. The bill of the Complainant was sorted and sent to the Post Office at Thalapuzha on 10.12.2005. The stamp impression on the telephone bill evinces that the bill reached the concerned Alattil Post Office through Sub Post Office Thalapuzha on 15.12.2005. The delivery of the bill was on 15.12.2005. The exact reason for the delay could not be accrued. Any how as per the directions given on the bill the party is liable to contact the concerned Office if any delay in obtaining the bill is caused. Detailed facilities were ear-marked in the reverse of the bill and the Complainant is entitled to contact the Opposite Party if any delay look place. It is further avered that under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 6 of 1898 the Government shall not incur any liability by reasons of 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 provided in the Act 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 on by his willful act or default. The Complaint is not maintainable and hence, it is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. The Points that are to be considered are: 1.Whether the Complainant is entitled for any compensation? 2.Relief and costs. Point No. 1 and 2: Point No. 1 and 2 can be considered together the Complainant was examined as PW1. The (Contd. . . . . 3) - 3 - Telephone bill dated 05.12.2005 is marked as Ext.A1. The receipt of the amount paid towards the Ext.A1 is marked as Ext.A2. According to the Complainant the telephone bill was usually received by him in between the 12 th and 17th of every months. In the particular month of the telephone disconnection the Complainant received the telephone bill two days after disconnection that was on 15.12.2005. It is testimonied by the Complainant that in case of any delay if evented. The Complainant could avail the details of the bill upon phone enquiry the authorities in Calicut on the enquiry of the Complainant informed him the amount that to be paid. The circumstance which lead the Complainant for the allegation of the deficiency in service is that in certain occasion the telephone bill was received by him on the very next day after it was sent. The Complainant already deposed that he is not in a position to affirm on whose side the delay caused in sending the telephone bill, further it is also ascertained. On examination that he has no case that the Opposite Party caused inordinate delay in sending the telephone bill. The Opposite Party had not tendered any oral evidence accept the version filed by them. The telephone bill was sent in an ordinary post from the Calicut Head Post Office. The section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act (6 of 1898) no responsibility lies upon the authority for the reasons of the loss mis delivery or delay or damage of postal article except they are expressly undertaken by the Government. Herein the bill was sent only in ordinary post. The option left for the Complainant to make enquiry regarding delay in receival of the telephone bill is not used by the Complainant. The point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief. The complaint is dismissed without any cost. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 26th day of September 2007. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witnesses for Complainant: PW1 Tomy Complainant. Witnesses for Opposite Party: Nil. Exhibits for Complainant: A1 Telephone Bill dt:05.12.2005. A2 Receipt. dt:15.12.2005. Exhibits for Opposite Party: Nil. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. Compared by: M/
