IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C. No. 126/2010 (Filed on 06.09.2010)
Between:
Sri. G. Ramachandran Nair,
Meera Bhavan,
Arukalickal West, Near-
Mahadeva Temple,
Parakode P.O., PIN – 691 554,
Pathanamthitta Dist. .... Complainant.
(By Adv. K. Sheeja)
And:
1. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nagpur Moffusil Division,
Nagpur – 440 002,
Maharashtra State.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Pathanamthitta Division,
Pathanamthitta – 689645.
3. Sub Post Master,
Silwara Post Office,
Pin – 441 109,
Nagpur District,
Maharashtra. .... Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is an Ex-employee of Western Coal Fields Limited, Silwara Project. His employer issued a cheque for ` 52,679-21 vide cheque No. 259127 dated 31.10.2009 as his retirement benefits. The said cheque was collected by his friend Sri. C.R. Vijayan and sent it to the complainant by registered post from Silwara Post Office vide receipt No. 3325 dated 05.12.2009. The said registered letter was not delivered to the complainant so far. Several complaints were made by the complainant to the postal authorities for the non-delivery of the said registered post by letters dated 21.12.2009, 07.01.2010, 01.02.2010, 31.03.2010 and Telegram dated 15.02.2010. Even then he had not received the registered letter. Because of his financial stringency, he approached his employer at Nagpur during February 2010 for issuing a new cheque. But they refused to issue a new cheque stating that a new cheque can be issued only after 6 months from the date of issue of the earlier cheque. After completing the period of 6 months, he sent a letter to the Finance Manager of his employer on 08.05.2010 for issuing the new cheque. But they did not considered his request. Then again he approached his employer at Nagpur on 08.06.2010 for issuing the new cheque. At that time, a new cheque was issued on 10.06.2010 for `52,679-10 vide cheque No.304740 dated 10.06.2010. Due to the non-delivery of the registered cover including the cheque, the complainant had sustained financial loss and mental agony. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for realising ` 4,728 being 18% interest on ` 52,679 from 11.12.2009 to 09.06.2010 and ` 11,220 being the travel expenses incurred for his 2 journeys to Nagpur along with cost of this proceedings.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and the second opposite party filed a common version for opposite parties with the following contentions: Opposite parties admitted that a registered article No. 3325 addressed to the complainant was booked at Silwara Post Office on 05.12.2009. But they are not aware of the contents of the article. On getting the complaint of the complainant regarding the non-delivery of the registered article, a search bill was issued and the complainant’s complaint is under process. On getting the complaint of the complainant by the second opposite party, the second opposite party transferred it to the first opposite party. However, no complaint has been received from the sender of the article. However, enquiries are going on. According to the opposite parties, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as per Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 whereby the Department is exempted from the liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay of any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express term be undertaken by the Central Government. As per the provisions, valuable articles are required to be sent by insured post and the alleged postal article was not sent by insured post and hence the opposite parties are not liable to the complainant. Moreover, the article was booked at Nagpur; the Forum at Nagpur has only the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Further the complainant had no allegation of any fraudulent act of any particular office, or has any evidence to prove any willful act or default against any particular officer of the Postal Department. With the above contentions, opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint, as they have not committed any deficiency of service.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points were raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs and Costs?
5. The complaint’s evidence consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A13. For the opposite parties, there is no oral or documentary evidence. But they have cross-examined PW1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. Point No.1:The opposite parties challenged the maintainability of this complaint based on Sec.6 and 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and on the basis of certain ruling of the Apex Forums. Since the opposite parties are service providers and the complainant being a consumer and the beneficiary of the lost registered article and as there is no specific provisions for redressing the grievances of the complainant as per Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the arguments raised by the opposite parties for challenging the maintainability of this complaint are not sustainable. Hence we find that this complaint filed by the complaint against the opposite parties under the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986 is maintainable before this Forum.
7. Point 2 & 3: The complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties is that the registered article containing a cheque for ` 52,679-21 sent by C.R. Vijayan in the name of the complainant from Silwara Post Office is not delivered to the complainant. According to the complainant, the non-delivery of the said registered article is a deficiency in service of the opposite parties, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A13. Exts.A1 to A13 are the copy of letters, complaints etc., postal receipts, postal acknowledgment cards and the copy of the lost cheque. All the said documents are related to the dispute between the parties and details of Exts.A1 toA13 is shown in the appendix.
9. The contention of the opposite parties is as follows: Opposite parties admitted the booking of the registered article from Silwara Post office to the complainant and they also admitted the non-delivery of the registered article to the complainant. But according to the opposite parties, they are unaware of the contents of the registered article and the registered article is not sent as insured post. Therefore, they argued that they are not liable to the complainant, as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. But they have cross-examined the complainant.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have gone through the entire materials on record. As per Exts.A1 to A13, it is found that a cheque for ` 52.679-21 issued by the complainant’s employer was sent by the complainant’s friend Mr. C.R. Vijayan from Silwara Post Office by registered post to the complainant on 05.12.2009, and the said registered cover was not delivered to the complainant by the opposite parties and thereafter the complainant obtained another cheque for the said amount from his employer on 08.06.2010. The entire evidence shows that the registered cover was lost in transit from the hands of the opposite parties. Opposite parties also admited the non-delivery of the registered article. But the opposite parties failed to prove that the non-delivery of the registered article to the complainant was not due to their fault. Therefore, we find that the non-delivery of the registered article to the complainant is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. However, the complainant failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that he had travelled twice to Nagpur in this connection. Therefore, this complaint can be allowed with modification.
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of ` 2,500 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation along with cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the whole amount with 10% interest per annum from today till the realisation of the whole amount.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of September, 2011.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : G. Ramachandran Nair.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Postal receipt No. 3325 dated 05.12.2009.
A2 : Letter dated 21.12.2009 issued by the complainant to the
Post Master General, General Post Office, Civil Line, Nagpur-1.
A3 : Letter dated 07.01.2010 issued by the complainant to the Post
Master General, General Post Office, Civil Line, Nagpur-1.
A3(a) : Postal receipt.
A3(b) & A3(c) : Postal acknowledgment cards.
A4 : Letter dated 08.01.2010 sent by the Postmaster, Pathanamthitta
to the 2nd opposite party with copy to the complainant.
A5 : Letter dated 16.01.2010 issued by the second opposite party to
the complainant.
A6 : Copy of letter dated 22.01.2010 issued by Postmaster General,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur to the first opposite party with copy to
the complainant.
A7 : Copy of letter dated 01.02.2010 sent by the complainant to the 1st
opposite party.
A7(a) : Postal receipt of Ext.A7.
A8 : Receipt dated 15.02.2010 for ` 28 being the Telegram charge
A9 : Certificate issued to the complainant by the Sub Postmaster,
Parakode
A9(a) : Copy of letter dated 25.02.2010 sent by the complainant to the
Finance Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Silwara Project,
Nagpur Area.
A10 : Letter dated 22.02.2010 issued by the 1st opposite party to the
complainant
A11 : Copy of letter dated 31.03.2010 sent by the complainant to the 1st
opposite party
A11(a): Postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A11
A12 : Copy of letter dated 08.05.2010 sent by the complainant to the
Finance Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Silwara Project,
Nagpur.
A13 : Photocopy of the Demand Draft dated 04.09.2010 for ` 100 in
favour of the President, CDRF, Pathanamthitta.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
(By Order)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Sri. G. Ramachandran Nair, Meera Bhavan, Arukalickal West,
Near Mahadeva Temple, Parakode P.O., PIN – 691 554,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagpur Moffusil Division, Nagpur – 440 002, Maharashtra State.
(3) Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Division,
Pathanamthitta – 689645.
(4) Sub Post Master, Silwara Post Office, Pin – 441 109,
Nagpur District, Maharashtra.
(5) The Stock File.
