CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC No. 343/2009 Tuesday, the 21st day of October , 2010 Petitioner : John George, Balavilas House, Moolavattom P.O Kottayam. (By Adv. P.G Girija) Opposite parties : 1) The Senior Post Master, Department of Posts India, Kalbadevi, Mumbai 2) The Manager, Department of Posts India, Speed Post Center, Kochi – 682011. 3) The Manager, Department of Posts India, Speed Post Center, Kottayam – 1. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner, filed on 13..11..2009, is as follows. Petitioner is an employee of M/s. Chellaram Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai. Petitioner is working as Electrical Officer in the ship of the said company. As per the direction of the company petitioner had to entrust his passport at U.S Consulate Chennai for stamping Visa to USA. As per the order of the company petitioner ought to have joined ‘MV Darya Mahesh’ at Shimizu, Japan on 15..11..2008. After stamping of the visa, passport and visa were sent to the said company by the consulate authority and the company received the same. In the company photo stat of the same were taken. As per the -2- request of the petitioner, the company sent the same to the complainant after complying the official formalities, through speed post, from Kalbadevi Head Post Office, Mumbai on 24..10..2008. The company sent passport and visa as stated above as agreed by the complainant, on payment of the postage to them by the complainant. Thus the complainant is a beneficiary of the service availed by the company for consideration from the opposite parties. The postal article containing the passport and visa of the complainant which was sent through the opposite parties and addressed to the complainant never reached to the complainant. According to the petitioner the postal articles were lost due to the willful omission on the part of all the opposite parties. Complainant made enquiries with respect to the same and sent an on line complaint on 11..11..2008 to the company. Another complaint was also sent by the complaint on 3..11..2008. On 13..11..2008 complainant sent a written complaint to the minister concerned. Complainant filed a complaint before the East Police Station, Kottayam with respect to the non-receipt of the passport. Complainant again sent another complaint on 21..11..2008 to the Chief General Manager of the opposite party. Due to the non receipt of the passport and visa complainant would not joint as an electrical officer in time. On account of that complaint sustained a loss of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Further more complainant had to meet further visa fees traveling expenses, paper publication etc. etc. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to the -3- opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 5,15,000/- as compensation. Petitioner claims Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party filed version in the form of an affidavit stating that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party submitted that a speed post article No. EMI 19876558 was sent by M/s. Chelehi Chellaram shipping Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. On 24..10..2008 addressed to the petitioner from Kalbadevi HPO. Opposite party admitted receipt of the complaint filed by the petitioner. Complaint was registered under No. 10000 – 11766 on 3..11..2008 and immediate enquiries were taken up. This speed post bag in which the speed post article was sent to speed post centre, Cochin by Kalbadevi Head Post office was not received at Kochi. Bag could not be traced out. The speed post bag containing the disputed speed post article suspected to be lost in transit between Mumbai and Cochin. According to the opposite parties they are not aware of the contents of postal article. Claiming compensation on the basis of such contents is not legal. Hon’ble National Commission held that consequences flowing from delay in delivery of postal article has no consequences in the matter of award of compensation beyond what is statutorily fixed. Petitioner is only entitled for doubled speed post charges collected from him. Senior post master Kalbadevi post office on 18..2..2010 sanctioned eligible compensation. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. -4- Points for determinations are: i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not? ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? iii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext. A1 to A8 documents on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 According to the opposite party petition for compensation is not maintainable and petitioner is only entitled for compensation which is statutorily fixed. As per the section 6 of the Indian Post office Act, Government is not responsible for any liability by reason of loss or miss delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. In so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government. So, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. In our view the stand taken by the opposite party is not sustainable. Section 6 of Indian Post office Act conforms exemption from liability for the loss, miss delivery delay or damage. The said section does not give immunity extended to the officials in case were the same is caused fraudulently or by willful act or default of the officials. In this case it is admitted that there was default on the part of the officials, which resulted in lost of the article. Further more, in our view remedy under Consumer Protection Act 1986 arises from charge of deficiency in service and is an additional remedy not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force including Indian Post Office Act. So, the petition is -5- maintainable. No other statute except Consumer Protection Act provide for compensation as to the mental agony, harassment loss arising from the charge of deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 According to the petitioner the article sent by Chellaram Shipping Pvt. Ltd. on 24..10..2008 addressed to the petitioner was not delivered to him. Opposite party in paragraph No. 5 of the version admitted that the article was registered on 3..11..2008. According to them the speed post bag including speed post article, suspected to be lost in transit between Mumbai and Kochi. Opposite party admitted the lost of the article. Only question to be decided is with regard to the quantum of compensation. According to the petitioner due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party petitioner could not joined as electrical officer at Japan in time. As such due to the loss of the job he sustained a loss of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove that due to the act of the opposite party he sustained such a loss. Ext. A18 is paper publication given by the petitioner advertising the loss of passport. Without saying what had happened caused much inconvenience and sufferings to the petitioner. Averment of the petitioner with regard to the lost of the job etc. are not disputed by the opposite party in their counter affidavit. We are of the view that allowing a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is reasonable and met the ends of justice. So, point No. 2 is found accordingly. -6- Point No. 3 In view of the finding in point No. 1 and 2. Petition is allowed in part. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner as compensation. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- to the petitioner as litigation cost. Opposite party is ordered to comply the order with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order. If the order is not complied as directed petitioner is entitled for 9% interest for the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of October, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the Petitioner Ext. A1: Employment letter. Ext. A2: Employment contract Ext. A3: Letter Dtd: 10..20..2008 issued by Chellaram Shipping company. Ext. A4: Letter Dtd: 2..1..2009 issued by Chellaram Shipping Compzany. Ext. A5: Copy of passport No. E-6850624 with Visa. Ext. A6: Copy of passport No. H-1959557 with Visa. Ext. A7: Fee deposit slip Dtd: 19..9..2008 Ext. A8: Fee deposit slip Dtd: 13..12..2008 Ext. A9: Receipt Dtd: 24..10..2008 Ext. A10: Letter Dtd: 3..11..2008 Ext. A11: Receipt of acceptance of on line complaint Ext. A12: Complaint Dtd: 13..11..2008 Ext. A13: Complaint Dtd: 21..11..2008 petition Dtd: 13..11..2008 to the East police station, Kottayam Ext. A14: Letter Dtd: 10..11..2008 Ext. A15: Letter Dtd: 23..12..2008 Ext. A16: Report in Malayalam daily Dtd: 31..11..2008 Ext. A17: Paper publication in Malayalam daily. By Order, Senior Superintendent amp/6cs
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
