BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 218/2008 Filed on 29.09.2008

Dated : 15.03.2010

Complainant:

Dr. Kartik Kulshrestha, “Madhavam”, T.C No. 6/1292(11), PRA 145 (E), Padayany Road, Maruthankuzhy, Vattiyoorkavu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-13.

Opposite parties:

1. Senior Postmaster, Thiruvananthapuram GPO.

    

2. Director General of Posts, Kerala/Chief Postmaster General, Kerala.

This O.P having been heard on 15.02.2010, the Forum on 15.03.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant booked a registered article vide reg. No. 8481 from GPO, Trivandrum to her sister Mrs. Kriti Kulshrestha, Agra-1, UP, that the said parcel contained mobile phone of Nokia make model No. 5610 costing Rs. 11,600/-, and the same was disclosed to the postal assistant at the registration counter of the opposite party's office, that when the parcel reached to the addressee it was found tampered and the box contained nothing except the carton of the mobile phone, and there was no registration slip over the parcel, instead an arbitrary suspicious No. 'xxx' was written thereon. The father of the complainant immediately informed the postal department at Agra. Complainant immediately went to the G.P.O and explained the entire matter to them. The Director General of Posts assured the complainant of an enquiry into the incident and compensation for the same. Complainant also gave a petition to the Vanchiyoor Police Station regarding the loss of mobile phone. No action was taken so far by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to refund the entire amount including the price of the mobile phone, packing charges, registration charges and other miscellaneous expenses along with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant.

Opposite parties filed version contending that complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law, that it is true that complainant had booked a registered article under No. 8481 at Thiruvananthapuram G.P.O on 22.05.2008, that the article was packed prior to its presentation at the counter, that receipt was also issued then and there by the Counter Assistant who had no knowledge at all of the contents of the article. Complainant's letter dated 30.05.2008 was duly acknowledged on 02.06.2008 and immediately enquiries were made. As per enquiry the post man had delivered the parcel to a messenger of the addressee on 28.05.2008 who gave it to the addressee only on the next day. That the person who took delivery of the article had not raised any objection at the time of delivery. Complainant has no allegation that there was any fraudulent or wilful act on the part of any postal employee under the opposite parties. The post office was established in India by a statute. The relief sought in the complaint is unsustainable and intended to get undue benefits out of public exchequer. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation? If so, at what amount?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and Ext. P1 to P5 were marked. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit and Exts. D1 to D4 (a) were marked.

Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, on 22.05.2008 complainant booked a registered article vide reg. No. 8481 from GPO, Trivandrum to her sister Mrs. Kriti Kulshrestha, Agra-1, UP. It has been the case of the complainant that the registered parcel contained a mobile phone of Nokia make model No. 5610 costing Rs. 11,600/-, and the same was disclosed to the postal assistant at the registration counter of the opposite party's office, that when the parcel reached to addressee it was found tampered and the box contained nothing except the carton of the mobile phone, and there was no registration slip over the parcel, instead an arbitrary suspicious No. 'xxx' was written thereon. Opposite party resisted the complainant by submitting that the counter assistant had no knowledge regarding the contents of the article nor had the complainant disclosed the contents of the parcel, nor had she made any enquiry at the counter before getting the article registered. It is argued by opposite parties that on getting complaint from the complainant, enquiry was conducted and enquiry report revealed that the postman had delivered the parcel to a messenger of the addressee on 28.05.2008 and the person who took delivery of the article had not raised any objection at the time of delivery. Further the article was delivered without any delay to the messenger. Ext. P1 is the copy of the postal receipt dated 22.05.2008 and registration No. stated therein is RLA 8481. Ext. P2 is the copy of the letter dated 02.06.2008 addressed to the complainant by the Department of Posts acknowledging the complaint sent by her. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter issued by the opposite party to complainant. Ext. P4 is the copy of the receipt of petition issued by the Vanchiyoor police station. Ext. P5 is the copy of the invoice dated 11.04.2008 issued by Mobily. Ext. D1 is the copy of the letter dated 4^th June 2008 from the office of the Chief Postmaster General to Senior Superintendent RMS Division. Ext. D2 is the copy of the letter from Senior Superintendent, RMS Division to the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle. Ext. D3 and D4 are copies of the letters to Chief Postmaster General. As per Ext. D4 “the PA at the Delivery Branch of Agra HO has stated in his statement that the aforesaid RL No. 8481 with 'xxx', in lieu of original RL No. booked at Thiruvananthapuram addressed to Mrs. Kriti Kulshrestha, 2/25, Vaibhav Nagar, Agra was received entered at SI 41/4. The same has been given for delivery to Sri. Sudheer Kumar, Postman of Beat No. 5 on 28.05.2008 itself”. It is further stated in Ext. D4 that the said Sudheer Kumar went to the residence of the addressee with that packet and found the door locked. He contacted them over telephone and they told him that they are sending Sri. Nardev Singh for taking delivery of the letter and accordingly he handed over the above packet to Sri. Nardev Singh and at the time of delivery the packet was intact and the same has been entrusted to the addressee on 29.05.2008. It is further stated in Ext. D4 that “the person who has taken delivery of the letter had not raised any objection at the time of delivery, but when the addressee has opened the packet, there was nothing inside. Probably the person who had received the packet might have tampered it or it might have happened at the office of booking”. It is concluded in Ext. D4 “that the postman has been found guilty of delivering the letter to the wrong person”. Ext. D4(a) is the Hindi version of Ext. D4. In this context it is to be mentioned that in the complaint complainant has stated that the said parcel was collected by her father and opened by him in the presence of two representatives, whereas in Ext. D4 is it seen mentioned by opposite party that the said parcel was collected by Nardev Singh from the postman. Further, in the complaint, she has stated that she had got the article well packed while in her affidavit it has been stated that the same was packed by workers in the Medical College Post office. Whereas opposite party says the article was packed prior to its presentation at the counter and the counter assistant had no knowledge at all of the contents of the parcel. Dispute still continues as regards the contents of the parcel. It is further to be noted that the slip regarding registration details affixed on the box was missed when it reached Agra. In his cross examination opposite party has deposed that the slip might have lost in transmission. Evidently by Ext. D4, the aforesaid parcel was not delivered to right addressee, thereby default and gross negligence on the part of postal authorities proved. It is argued by the opposite party that under Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Government 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 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 wilful act or default. A bare perusal of Sec. 6 clearly shows that if liability in express terms is undertaken by the Central Government as provided therein the exemption to that extent stands obviated. Postal article has been defined under Sec. 2 (1) of the Indian Post Office Act and reads as under:

Sec. 2(1) : The expression 'postal article' includes a letter, postcard, newspaper, book, pattern or sample packet, parcel and every article or thing transmissible by post. It is manifest from the definition of the postal article that it excludes registered letter. In this case complainant has booked one registered letter No. A 8481. No matter whatever be the content in it whether disclosed or undisclosed, what we consider is whether the registered letter has been served to right addressee. Evidently by Ext. D4 the said parcel was not delivered to right addressee. Non-delivery of the said registered letter 8481 to right addressee would amount to deficiency in service. Post office cannot claim exemption under the special plea under Sec. 6.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Opposite parties shall pay the said amount to complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

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 15^th day of March 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 218/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Dr. Kartik Kulshrestha

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of postal receipt dated 22.05.2008

P2 - Photocopy of letter dated 02.06.2008

P3 - Photocopy of letter issued by the opposite party to

complainant.

P4 - Photocopy of the receipt of petition issued by the Vanchiyoor

police station.

P5 - Photocopy of the invoice dated 11.04.2008.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - K. Sasidharan

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Photocopy of letter dated 04.06.2008 from opposite party.

D2 - Photocopy of letter dated 04.06.2008.

D3 - Photocopy of letter dated 05.06.2008.

D4 - Photocopy of letter dated 03.07.2008

PRESIDENT