Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/134/2012

THE DIRECTOR, CHENNAI FOREIGN POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMPATH - Opp.Party(s)

A. KUMAR

09 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                              BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 134/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.477/2009 dated 30.5.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North) ]

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

1.The Director

Chennai Foreign Post Office

Chennai 600 001             

 

2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Chennai City North Division,

Chennai 600 008   

 

3. The Postmaster

Domestic and International Parcel Centre

Flower Bazaar post office

Chennai 600 001                                         ..Appellants/opp.parties

                                             Vs

Mr.Sampath

No.49/5, Vellala street

Purasawalkam

Chennai 600 007                                       ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellants/opp.parties    : M/s A. Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant  : M/s V.Varadharajan

 

    The opposite parties are the appellants.  The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellants/opposite parties filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(North) in CC.No. 477/2009 dated 30.5.2011. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 4.6.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai (North) this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.     The opposite parties are  the appellants. The complainants sent a parcel through the 3^rd opposite party to his son- in- law  at New Jersy in USA containing goods for the value of Rs.18,000/- on 22.7.2009 and parcel charge of Rs.1500/- was paid, it was not received by the consignee at the other end, New Jersy, USA. Hence consumer complaint filed claiming for refund of value of goods, compensation along with costs.

 

2.       The opposite parties denied the allegations contending that the  parcel was reached at USA and if at all as per Postal Rules, the complainant is entitled only for Rs. 4,536/- for the loss of goods and thereby there was no deficiency in service.

3.       The District Forum after an enquiry, allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the value of goods, Rs.1500/- parcel charges, another Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as costs.

4.          Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties filed the appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint and as soon as the complaint was made for non-delivery steps were taken immediately under Ex.A.6 and A.8 was not proved, eventhough the foreign administration admitted the receipt of parcel, it is up to them alone responsible for delivery of the parcel to the consignee and as per the foreign goods manual Bernite 205 for loss of goods offered 65.82 SDR as compensation which is equillant to Rs.4,536/-. Hence the complaint to be dismissed.

5.         We have heard both side arguments and carefully considered all the relevant materials in this regard.

6.          It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant’s parcel sent to his son-in-law at New Jersy in USA was not delivered him for which the complaint was made. Even though the opposite parties contended that the parcel reached USA, it is not proved that it was delivered to the consignee. It is also stated by the opposite parties that the foreign administration at USA, the Foreign Postal Authorities have offered to pay 65.82 SDR as compensation as per the Foreign Post manual Berne 205 which is equivlent to Rs. 4536/- to Indian value (1 SDR = Rs.68.92)  that itself proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in non delivering the goods consigned. Even though, the opposite parties relied upon the compensation only for Rs.4536/- as per the Foreign Post manual sent, the complainant after paying a service charge of Rs.1500/- to sent the parcel containing the value of goods worth Rs. 18,000/- which was not disputed and also the District Forum observed the parcel weighing 2.5 kgs. The amount of loss of goods fully awarded by the District Forum along with the refund of service charges paid for sending parcel alone are all acceptable and as for as quantum of compensation concerned, the District Forum eventhough observed that the complainant had not produced any documents for the value of goods to the extent of Rs.18,000/-  accepting the value as pleaded and also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. In those circumstances we are of the view that it would be more than the normal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost which is above is normal and thereby we are inclined to reduce the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7000/- by allowing the appeal in part and retaining the order of the District Forum in other respects and accordingly,

           In the result, this appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in CC 477/2009 dated 30.5.2011, reducing the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7000/- and in other respects, confirming the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North).

           No order as to costs in this appeal.  

          The directions shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                     A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER