2. Senior Superintendent of Post Office,

    Head Post Office,

    Ranga Reddy,

    Ranga Reddy District.                                      … Opposite Parties

                This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      03-12-10 in the presence of complainant and of Sri P.Sanath Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to take action against the opposite party for deficiency of service and to direct them to furnish the reasons for non-service of the article.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant is Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Guntur represented by its Administrative Officer. One Panguluri Nagaswara Rao filed petition i.e., MVOP 1323/2009 before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur claiming compensation for the accident caused to him on 24-10-09 against the respondents            1) G.Balakondaiah S/o. Narasimhulu Lorry owner, D.No.10-148/1/A, Sai Nagar, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpalli, Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy District and 2) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. represented by its Branch Manager, Opp. Stella College, Ring Road, Vijayawada.

                In the said MVOP notices were ordered to respondents 1 and 2 to be served by 18-01-2010.  As per the order, summons were sent by way of registered letter in RL No.6670 dt.17-12-09 to respondent No.1 who is residing at the above given address at Ranga Reddy.  The registered letter was booked at Guntur Collectorate Sub Post Office on 17-12-2009.  The said registered letter was returned to sender on 22-12-2009 as unserved registered letter by the postman who was entrusted with tapals for delivery of the same.  In case of registered letters they have to make endorsement on the registered letters as to the efforts of service made by them.  But in the present case, the postman who was entrusted with this registered letter did not assign any reason for non-service.  Simply the said registered letter was returned to the sender without making any endorsement.  It shows the sheer negligence of postal authorities.   The act of postal authorities in returning the unserved registered letter to the sender causes much inconvenience to the proceedings before the Court. It is a deficiency of service on the part of postal authorities.  Hence, the complaint.

                The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their version, which is in brief as follows:

                All the averments made in the complaint are false, incorrect and not true and the complaint is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The provisions of law under which the case was filed has no application to the facts of case. There are no valid and tenable grounds to allow the complaint.  The contents made in the complaint are not true and they are invented for the purpose of filing this complaint.   The allegations are denied and they are put to strict proof of the same. 

                It is a fact that RL No.6670 was booked at Guntur Collectorate Post Office on 17-12-09 and the same was dispatched to destination on the same day as per mailing pattern and it is alleged in the complaint that the said registered letter was returned back and delivered to sender on 22-12-09.  On receipt of complaint from Forum, the matter was taken-up immediately with the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, to cause enquiry for return of registered article. It was informed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Secunderabad Division that the said registered letter was returned back to the sender on 19-12-09 as there is “no such door number 10-148/1/A at Sai Nagar, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpalli, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, the registered letter could not be delivered to the addressee and returned to sender.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service rendered by this opposite party. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

                The complainant filed affidavit in support of his complaint reiterating the same.  The opposite parties also filed affidavit in support of their version reiterating the same.

                On behalf of complainant Exs.A1 to A3 are marked.  Ex.A1 is the registered letter with acknowledgement.  Ex.A2 is the copy of Ex.A1.  Ex.A3 is the copy of extract of postal diary register.  On behalf of opposite parties Exs.B1 and B2 are marked. Ex.B1 is the copy of letter addressed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Guntur Division, Guntur. Ex.B2 is the copy of letter addressed to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Hyderabad. 

Now the points for consideration are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

POINTS 1 & 2

                   The case of complainant is that in MVOP 1323/2009 notices were ordered to respondents therein and notice to R1 was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. The said registered letter was booked at Guntur Collectorate Sub Post Office under RL No.6670 dt.17-12-2009 and the same was returned unserved on        22-12-2009 without making any endorsement thereon as to why the said registered letter was returned unserved.  The said act of postal authorities amounts to deficiency of service. 

                The case of opposite parties is that the registered letter in question was returned to sender unserved as there is no such door number at the given address. 

                It is not in dispute that the complainant booked a registered letter at Guntur Collectorate Sub Post Office on 17-12-2009 under RL No.6670.  As seen from Ex.A1, the said registered letter does not contain any endorsement showing the cause for returning the said letter to the sender.  The Postman who was entrusted with the delivery of registered letter did not make any endorsement on the said registered letter for returning the same. Thus he has returned the said registered letter without making any endorsement to the concerned Post Office, which entrusted the said letter to him.  The said Post Office which is expected to deliver the letter has received returned register letter from Postman, even though there is no endorsement regarding the service.  Ex.B2 cannot be believed in view of absence of any endorsement on Ex.A1. Hence, it can be said that Ex.B2 is concocted for the purpose of case. Thus the Postman concerned and the Post Office that entrusted letter to the Postman have not taken care for making necessary endorsement on the registered letter regarding service and it was returned to Post Office, where the said letter was booked for returning the same to the sender.  

                The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union of India and others Vs. V.K.Sanghi and others (2010 CTJ 881), it was held “when extra charges are collected by the Postal Department for the registered post, proper care should be taken in delivery otherwise the distinction between the ordinary post and registered post would disappear.” 

                As there is no proper supervision on the part of post offices concerned and due to negligence of Postman, the registered letter in question was returned to sender without making any endorsement thereon regarding service. Thus the above said act of postal authorities concerned amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of case, we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of postal authorities concerned.

                The complainant prayed to take action against the opposite parties for deficiency of service and to direct them to furnish the reasons for non-service.  The opposite party stated in its version that the said registered letter was returned as there is no such door number at the given address. But the same was not endorsed on the returned registered letter as already stated above.  Therefore, if we direct the opposite parties to take necessary and suitable disciplinary action against the postal personnel concerned for returning the registered letter to the sender without endorsing the reason for non-service of the same, would meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly, this issue is answered.

                In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed to take necessary and suitable disciplinary action against the postal personnel concerned for returning the registered letter to the sender without making any endorsement thereon regarding its service. 
2. The opposite parties are further directed to intimate the action taken to the complainant within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 8^th day of December, 2010.     

         Sd/- x x x                       Sd/- x x x                         Sd/- x x x          

     MEMBER                                  MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral evidence is adduced on either side

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For Opposite Parties:                                

                                                                                           Sd/- x x x        

                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                      //Fair copy//