JUDGMENT 5.10.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.1450 of 2009 was allowed with costs of Rs.500/- and OPs were directed to pay Rs.1500/- on account of compensation. 2. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant on the eve of New Year had sent 369 greeting cards to his friends and relatives through OP-2 on 26.12.2008 and paid Rs.1550/- as postage as required by OP-2 and they affixed stamp of “postage prepaid” on each envelope. However, subsequently complainant came to know from some of his friends and relatives to whom cards were sent that the postmen had charged postage on the cards despatched by him despite the stamp on the envelope and he felt insulted and shocked at the conduct of OPs. The complainant had posted one greeting card to his aunt namely Surjit Kaur, Cooperative Bank, Moonak, District Sangrur, a copy of which is annexure C-2. This card bore the stamp of ‘postage prepaid’ affixed on it but the addressee was charged Rs.8/- on the ground that the complainant had not affixed any postage stamp on the greeting card. Similarly on 3.1.2009 he received a greeting card back as the addressee Sh.Munish Vaid, advocate of Gurdaspur refused to pay the postage of Rs.8/- demanded by the postman. Then again on 6.1.2009 complainant received back another greeting card addressed to Sh.Sukhdev Singh Dhaliwal,advocate, Ferozepur which had been refused by the addressee as the postman had demanded postage of Rs.10/- from the addressee and the said amount was charged from the complainant when the refused card was returned to him by the postman . Complainant on 7.1.2009 made representation to OP-2 to enquire into the matter of charging double postage from the complainant as well as addressees but nothing was done. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and mal practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 3. On the other hand, OPs in their reply filed before the District Forum admitted that the complainant had posted 369 New Year greeting cards through MBU, Chandigarh on 26.12.2008 and paid postage of Rs.1,550/-. However, it was pleaded that some articles were wrongly treated as unpaid and charged as per weight because the “Postage Prepaid” stamp resembled with “date stamp” and the officials at fault were proceeded under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was further pleaded that there was no malafide intention on the part of the OPs and the amounts of Rs.10/- and Rs.8/- which were wrongly charged had been ordered to be refunded to the complainant. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or mal practice on their part a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The sole point of arguments raised on behalf of the complainant is that he had paid requisite postage of Rs.1550/- as demanded by OP NO.2 for sending New Year Greeting Cards but still the postmen charged postage on the said cards and despite deficiency in service and negligence having been proved , the learned District Forum allowed compensation of Rs.1500/- which is inadequate and not in consonance with the loss of repudiation, mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant. It was submitted that the purpose of paying pre-paid postage charges stood frustrated and the conduct of OPs in charging the postage twice from the addressees adversely affected his profession and lowered down his reputation for which he be awarded compensation of Rs.one lac. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tried his level best to repel the aforesaid arguments. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs is well established before the District Forum and here also we do not find any reason to deviate from the aforesaid conclusion regarding deficiency in service arrived at by the District Forum. However, the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1500/- awarded in this case appears to be on the lower side keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact the complainant had already paid postage charges for sending greeting cards and charging of postage twice from the addressee was illegal, unjust and amounted to mal practice on the part of OPs which lowered down the image and reputation of the complainant and he must have suffered mental agony and embarrassment. Thus, we are of the view that ends of justice would meet if the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is enhanced from Rs.1500/- to Rs.5000/-. We order accordingly. 7. In the result, this appeal is accepted with costs of Rs.2200/- and OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a total sum of Rs.7200/- within one month from the date copy of the order is received, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% from the date of filing of this appeal till actual realization. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
