O R D E R R.Vijayakumar, Member. This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant’s case is that he was served with the parcel of containing a pair of old shoes instead of a new pair of boot sent on 04.08.06 by his son-in-law who was working in Army Camp Madhura, Uttar (2) Pradesh. Even though the matter was reported and complaint was lodged, the opposite parties have not taken effective steps for Redressal. As per intimation given by the postman on 12.08.2006 after 4 P.M. the complainant went to the post office to receive the parcel. The parcel was not properly packed. When the parcel was opened at his home it is found that the parcel contains a pair of old shoes instead of a pair of new boots. This matter was informed to the post mistress on that day itself. A complaint was lodged before 1st OP on 16.08.06 and that complaint was included in Dak Adalath. But no remedial step taken by the opposite parties. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in serve from their part and they are liable to compensate. Hence the complaint is filed for getting price of boots Rs.850/- along with 12% interest from 04.08.06, Rs.500 as traveling expenses Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost. The opposite party’s case is that no abstraction taken place at the delivery point. The Registered parcel bearing No.68 was booked at Field post Office No.1698 addressed to the complainant was received for delivery at Kattilkkadavu.P.O. on 11.08.06 but the same was not taken out for delivery on 11.08.06 owing to incessant rain. The delivery official had informed the complainant about the arrival of parcel on 12.08.06.The complainant took delivery on 14.08.06 without any complaint. The same day itself complainant again came to the Post office and complained that (3) there was some discrepancy in the contents. The contents were not known to post office. On 16.08.06 the complainant had lodged a complaint before first opposite party. Immediately, necessary enquiries were ordered into the case. In the mean time, the complainant was requested to attend the Dak Adalath held on 05.01.07. He was attended and the entire process of enquiry was explained to him. There were some lapses on the part of delivery post office, so far it did not delivered the parcel immediately on that day itself and did not inform the complainant about the arrival of parcel on 11.08.06. The postmaster represented that due to the incessant rain it was happened. A thorough enquiry was conducted and it is revealed that no abstraction taken place at the point of delivery. The complainant was informed in writing that the exact point of abstraction was not known and it was also requested to the complainant to advice the sender of the article to prefer claim at the office of booking for compensation as per rules. The complainant is not eligible to get compensation since there no complaint about fraudulent or default against any particular office. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 examined. Exhibits P1 to P3 marked. The opposite party also filed affidavit DW1 examined. Exhibits D1 and D2 marked. Heard both sides. (4) The points that would arised for consideration are: - Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
- Compensation and cost.
Points (1) and (2) Admittedly by a parcel was sent to the complainant through the post office in Army Camp, Madhura, Uttar Pradesh on 04.08.06 and it was reached at the delivery point on 11.08.06. The information was given to the complainant after 4 P.M. on 12.08.06 and the parcel was received by the complainant on 14.08.06. A complaint was made to the post mistress by the complainant on the same day itself and the written complaint was lodged to the first opposite party on 16.08.06. The reason pointed out by opposite parties for non-delivery of the parcel on 11.08.06 is incessant rain on that day. Admitted by the opposite parties in their version and affidavit that there were some lapses which resulted the delay in delivery. It is noted in Exihibit D1 that on 11.08.06 – RP.No.68.4.8. ‘House Locked’. The document differ with the statement in version and affidavit. The next day also parcel was not delivered. The reason stated for the non delivery is the same as on 11.08.06. (5) The complainant was already informed about the arrival of parcel on 12.08.06 only after 4 P.M. with the knowledge that the subsequent day is Sunday. Based on these circumstances we cannot come to the conclusion that the delay in delivery is not a willful default. The opposite parties had stated in their version that a thorough enquiry was also conducted by Inspector of Posts, Karunagappally Sub- Division which revealed that there was no evidence against second opposite party staff to suspect their integrity and that no abstraction was taken place at the delivery point. The complainant was informed that the exact point of abstraction was not known. In Exhibit P2, the reply sent to the complainant it is stated that “the abstraction was not happened at the office of delivery. But the exact point of abstraction could not so far been ascertained. However some lapses are noticed in the disposal of the articles. Suitable action is being taken against the officials at fault”. It is also stated that the inconvenience caused to the complainant is regretted. From Exhibit D2, we could understand the opposite party is not clear that there was no abstraction at anywhere. Abstraction taken place somewhere is admitted. The actual point of abstraction is to be ascertained. The parcel was under the custody of postal department. If there is an abstraction taken place, the opposite parties are bound to ascertain the actual point of abstraction and find out actual culprits. The opposite parties are also liable to compensate since an abstraction was admitted by them. (6) In cross examination DW1 has stated that he is ready to submit statement records of enquiry. But he has not produced the records to prove the genuiness of the enquiry. Eventhough she has stated that actions taken against post man for the lapses she is unknown that what action was taken against the post man. No document of such an action was produced by the opposite parties. In cross examination DW1 has stated that the house in which the post mistress was residing is situated in the same compound of the post office. The complainant in cross examination has stated that the parcel was taken from the opposite party’s residence and it was delivered to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant argued the circumstances also strengthen the case of complainant. For all that has been discussed above we are of the opinion that there is willful delay and default in delivery of the parcel. As opposite parties had admitted that there is abstraction taken place it can be only by fraud. We are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.850/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from 14.08.06 till the date of payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation Rs.1000/- and cost Rs.1000/-. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 31st day of May 2010. Sri.K. Vijayakumaran : Sd/- R.Vijayakumar : Sd/- Adv: Ravi Susha : Sd/- / / Forwarded by Order / / Senior Superintendent INDEX List of witness for the complainant PW1 - Devadas List of documents for complainant P1 - Complainant’s copy P2 - Reply dtd : 30.01.07. P3 - Envelope List of witness for the opposite party DW1 - Meena | 
