IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 4th day of October, 2021
Filed on 24.01.2019
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA,LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.26/2019
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Daniel 1. Rev. Fr. Varghese George
Anugraha Thekkemulackal House
Kottamkulangara Ward Cheppad.P.O
South Aryad Alappuzha-690507
Avalookkunnu.P.O (Adv. Joseph Mathew)
Alappuzha -688006
(Party in person) 2. The Post Mistress,
Smt. Lekhshmi Devi.P
Cheppad.P.O,
Alappuzha -690507
(Party in person)
3. The Post Man,
Sri. Sutheesan.D
Cheppad.P.O,Alappuzha
Pin-690507
(Party in person)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
Brief facts of complainant’s case are as follows:-
The complainant is presently residing in Anugraha, Avalookkunnu P.O, Alappuzha. In 2014 onwards he shifted from Thekkeumulackal house, Cheppad.P.O to the above address. The change of address has been duly given to the post office on 14/4/2014 by hand. On 8/5/2017 a speed post article, cheque book from SBI, EO900183951N was received at cheppad post office in the name of the complainant. In which there is an instruction that if the same is not delivered to return the sender. The 3rd opposite party taken it and gone for delivery, 3rd opposite party was working as postman in that area since 31/01/2013 onwards and the complainant left from cheppad.P.O area on 13/4/2014. As per norms the addressee of an article changes their address without informing the present address to the post office the article will be returned to sender. But the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are having sufficient experience and service, both of them jointly and knowingly re-directed the article in to two post offices ie, Thathampally.,P.O and Kaithaparambil.P.O respectively. The said address was given by the 1st opposite party, he is the close relative of the complainant but both of them were enemies. Moreover the said article was in tampered and repasted condition. The expenditure for speed post charge is paid by the bank. As the incorrect postal address the article was delivered only on 29/7/2017. Therefore, the complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3. According to them due to the acts of opposite parties 1 to 3 he suffered mental agony, since all his earnings are keeping in said SB account, the tampered article contained cheque book of above the account. So there is a possibility to misuse the account number by the 1st opposite party. Hence he claimed compensation from opposite parties 1 to 3.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
There is no cause of action against the 1st opposite party. The purpose of the complainant is to harass the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party did not commit any mischief as stated in the complaint. In the absence of cause of action against the 1st opposite party, so he is unnecessary party in the complaint. On that count he is entitled to get compensatory cost from the complainant.
3. Version of the 2nd and 3rd opposite party is as follows:-
A Speed Post article no. EO90018395IN addressed to Sri. Daniel.V, Thekkemoolackal, Cheppad P.O was received on 10/5/2017 at cheppad post office. The 3rd opposite party on receipt of the article after being entrusted for delivery approached the residence. Thekkemoolackal, Cheppad .P.O for effecting delivery of the article. On enquiry he was informed by resident of Thekkemoolackal that the addressee Daniel.V had been shifted from Thekkemoolackal House about 20 years back. This information has been provided by 1st opposite party he is complainant’s brother’s son. As per norms if the addressee of an article changes his residence, without informing his change of residence to Post Office, the article will be returned to sender on the basis of addressee left station without instruction but in this case for providing better service and to avoid inconvenience to the public, the postman collected the changed address verbally from the resident of the address and redirected the article to the address in good faith. The address so provided was “Anugraha, Kalathil Junction, Kaithaparambu, Thathampally.P.O. Smt. Jayasree (SPM Chennithala) the then Sub Post master at Cheppad.P.O redirected the article as per address provided by Postman to Thathampally Post office.
3rd opposite party has been working as Postman Cheppad since 31/01/2013 whereas the complainant left the address about 20 years back and hence the whereabouts were not known to the Postman, so there is no case of personal partiality which may lead for incorrect redirection. The postman carried out his duty in good faith only even when the expenditure for redirection of article is bared by the Department only. It is also submitted that till the date of receipt of the article Sri. Daniel did not provide oral or written intimation to Cheppad Post Office regarding his shifting to new address and also did not provide the address particulars at his bank also. Due to this negligence on the part complainant this article was received at Cheppad Post Office and subsequently redirected to Thathampally as per direction of his relative who was residing in the address of the article. If the complainant provided his change of address at Cheppad Post Office, this inconvenience could have been avoided. On 18/1/2019 complainant provided his new address to Cheppad Post Office for redirecting his article on receipt at Cheppad Post Office.
The redirected article was received at Thathampally Post Office and based on the remark of the Postman the article was returned back to the sender SBI, Kayamkulam. When the undelivered article was returned back to sender (Bank Authorities) no complaint was raised regarding condition of the article had been intimated by the Bank authorities. Hence the allegation of complainant that tampering on article was made by Postal authorities is not true and the article was received by hand by the complainant from the bank.
The postal department is charging Speed Post fee for first address only, extra expenditure for the redirection of articles are being bared by the Department. The opposite party has been working in the delivery area since last 7 years and the whereabouts of the complainant is not known to the post man. The information that the complainant left the address 20 years was given by the resident at the address mentioned on the article. The article was booked by SBI and returned to the sender after making all efforts for delivery. In the instant case there is no loss to the complainant caused by any act of the 2nd and 3rd opposite party.
4. The following points raised for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs sought for?
2. Relief and cost if any?
5. The complainant adduced oral and documentary evidence. Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. 3rd opposite party was examined as RW1 Ext.B1 and B2 were marked. Thereafter we have heard both parties. Opposite parties 2 and 3 filed argument note.
6. Point No.1:-
The complainant alleged that on 8/5/2017 a speed post article contained cheque book sent by the SBI, Kayamkulam, was received at Cheppad Post Office in the name of complainant Thekkumulackal, Cheppad.P.O. But at that time he is residing at another address. There is an instruction on the article that if not delivered, return to sender knowing all this facts under the influence of his rival, 1st opposite party the other opposite parties, Post Mistress and Postman redirected said article to wrong address. As the postal address was incorrect the article was returned to SBI, Thathampally and was delivered the article to the complainant in tampered and reposted condition after long delay.
Ext.A1 is the reply letter from Superintendent of Posts Mavelikara Division dated.6/8/2018 to the complainant. In which discussing about subject of irregular redirection of postal article. It is mentioned that they were warned the officials against such fault. Ext.A2 reply dated 15/11/2018 by Asst. Director office of the Post master General. This is the reply of complainant’s letter dated. 26/9/2018. As per Ext.A2 the complainant has not submitted instruction for the change of residence at Cheppad .P.O. The 3rd opposite party collected the redirection address from the 1st opposite party, he is residing in the delivery address of the disputes article. The intention of the 3rd opposite party was to make delivery of the article to the complainant but the same was wrongly to incorrect address. Against which suitable action was taken by speed posts for the fault of their officials. As per Ext.A3, the envelop of the disputed article was redirected to another address ie, Thathampally.P.O. The 1st oppositeparty contented that he is not a necessary party in the complaint. Since no consumer relationship between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. The reason for the allegation put up in the complaint is the personal grudge against him. Nothing is on records that there is any transaction between the complainant and 1st opposite party. During the cross examination of PW1 he deposed there is no transaction between the PW1 and 1st opposite party and there is some family issues existing in between them. In the absence of the reliable evidence we found that 1st opposite party is unnecessary party in this complaint concern and complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought against him.
On going through the complaint it appears that the reason for this complaint is on the basis of dispute between the complainant and 1st opposite party. Admittedly the disputed article was redirected in wrong address collected by the 3rd opposite party from the 1st opposite party. It is to be noted that the complainant did not provide any instruction to the post office to return the article if received in his present address. But he claimed that he provided his change of address to the post office on 2014. As per Ext.B1, the copy of request, dated 18/11/2019 ie, just before filed this complaint, this complainant made a request to the Post master to redirect the postal article to his present Alappuzha address.
The question is whether the delay in delivery of the article caused any loss to the complainant?
Opposite parties 2 and 3 argued that the article was redirected in good faith trust on the address provided by the 1st opposite party since the article contained cheque book and also it came by way of speed post. During the re examination Rw1 deposed like that Ext.B2 is the copy of Sec. 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1896. In which it is stated that :-
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 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 or default.”
Another allegation is that the article was received by the sender bank in tampered condition. But no evidence before us that the bank has been made any complaint with regard to said aspect. In view of the above discussion we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3 and due to the delay in delivery of the disputed article caused any damages to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint is devoid of any merit.
7. Point No.2:-
In the result, we dismiss the complaint. Both parties shall bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 04th day of October, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Daniel.V(complainant)
Ext.A1 - Reply letter to SPOs dtd. 16/8/2018
Ext.A2 - Reply Letter dated. 15/11/2018
Ext.A3 - Envelop
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sutheesan.D(3rd OP)
Ext.B1 - Copy of request dated.18-1-2019
Ext.B2 - copy of Sec. 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1896
//True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
